A federal New York judge on Tuesday allowed a fired Office Depot manager’s nearly nine-year-old discrimination lawsuit to proceed, with the court to set a trial date in the near term.
A New York federal judge said Tuesday that a jury needs to probe a former Office Depot manager's claims that her supervisor sexually harassed her and that she was fired for...
“The jury found based on the evidence presented at trial that Mark Flores had made protected complaints of age and disability and that Office Depot retaliated against Mark Flores for those complaints and for taking CFRA leave,” Josh Arnold, one of Flores’ attorneys, said in reference to the California Family Rights Acts, the state law that guarantees leave time for sick or injured employees.
Corporate conductAllegationAgainst
Office Depot is accused of suspending PC Health Check scanning
Office Depot is accused of suspending its PC Health Check scanning procedures two days after KIRO 7 exposed its practices.
Office Depot Pays $25 Million To Settle Deceptive Tech Support Lawsuit
Office Depot and Support.com, Inc, a tech support software provided from California, agreed to pay $25 million and $10 million respectively for allegedly tricking their customers into paying for millions of US dollars worth of computer repair services using fake malware scans.
Both the Office Depot and Value America complaints also allege that the companies falsely represented that their "free" computer system offers included a monitor at no additional cost.
All three complaints challenge the companies' failure to disclose, or failure to disclose adequately, the following material information: 1) the required three-year subscription to the Internet service and its cost; 2) the amount of the rebates and the total upfront cost of the computer without the rebates (this allegation is not included in the Office Depot complaint); 3) the penalty for early termination of the Internet service; 4) the possible long-distance telephone charges or hourly surcharges to use the Internet service; and 5) as to Value America, that it can take 12-17 weeks for consumers to receive their Internet service provider rebates.
The Federal Trade Commission has reached consent agreements with online retailers BUY.COM and Value America, and the Office Depot retail chain, over charges they engaged in deceptive practices in advertising so-called "free" and "low-cost" computer systems.
The Office Depot and Value America orders also ban misrepresentations about what is or is not included in the advertised price or cost to address the alleged false advertising about monitors.
Corporate conductRulingAgainst
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced an enforcement action against Office Depot
The final decision involving Office Depot, Inc. concerns financial law.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced an enforcement action against Office Depot, Inc. for violating fair disclosure regulations when selectively conveying to analysts and institutional investors that the company would not meet analysts' earnings estimates.
Office Depot agreed to settle the SEC's charges without admitting or denying the allegations, and will pay a $1 million penalty.
1 In addition, the Commission has contemporaneously filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida charging Office Depot with violating Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder, and Regulation FD, and seeking a civil penalty.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate that cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), against Office Depot, Inc. (“Respondent”).1 II. In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement (“Offer”) which the Commission has determined to accept.
Office Depot has agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by consenting to the entry of an administrative order requiring it to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder, and Regulation FD.
The analysts also were reminded of Office Depot’s prior cautionary public statements. Analysts promptly lowered their estimates for the period in response to the calls.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced enforcement actions against Office Depot, Inc. and two executives for violating or causing violations of fair disclosure regulations when selectively conveying to analysts and institutional investors that the company would not meet analysts’ earnings estimates.
Office Depot prematurely recognized approximately $30 million in funds received from vendors in exchange for the company’s merchandising and marketing efforts instead of recognizing the funds over the relevant reporting periods in a manner consistent with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Office Depot agreed to settle the SEC’s charges without admitting or denying the findings and allegations, and will pay a $1 million penalty.
Unrelated to these Regulation FD violations, the SEC also charged Office Depot with overstating its net earnings in its financial statements for the third quarter of 2006 through the second quarter of 2007 as a result of accounting violations.
Corporate conductAllegationAgainst
Office Depot is accused of violating securities laws
Office Depot is accused of violating Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and related rules and regulations.
1 In addition, the Commission has contemporaneously filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida charging Office Depot with violating Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder, and Regulation FD, and seeking a civil penalty.
Without admitting or denying the Commission’s allegations, Office Depot has consented to the entry of a final judgment by the Court that would require it to pay a civil penalty of $1,000,000.
Corporate conductSettlementAgainst
The Consumer Product Safety Commission voted to provisionally accept a settlement agreement that orders Office Depot
The settlement involving Office Depot, Inc. concerns compliance measures.
The Commission voted (3-2) to provisionally accept the Settlement Agreement and Order, which orders Office Depot, Inc. (the Firm) to pay a civil penalty of $3.4 million and to implement compliance measures.
The Commission voted (3-2) to provisionally accept the Settlement Agreement and Order, which orders Office Depot, Inc. (the Firm) to pay a civil penalty of $3.4 million and to implement compliance measures.
The Commission voted (3-2) to provisionally accept the Settlement Agreement and Order, which orders Office Depot, Inc. (the Firm) to pay a civil penalty of $3.4 million and to implement compliance measures.
Federal law requires parties like Office Depot to report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) about a consumer product containing a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or presenting a risk of serious injury.
In addition to paying the $3.4 million civil penalty, Office Depot has agreed that the company has, and shall maintain, a compliance program designed to ensure compliance with the Consumer Product Safety Act and a related system of internal controls and procedures.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is announcing that Office Depot Inc., of Boca Raton, Fla., has agreed to pay a $3.4 million civil penalty to settle CPSC staff’s charges that Office Depot knowingly failed to report to CPSC, as required by federal law, defects and an unreasonable risk of serious injury concerning two models of office chairs—the Quantum and the Gibson.
The SEC alleges Office Depot prematurely recognized $30 million in vendor funds instead of over time, leading to a material weakness in financial controls.
The SEC alleges that Office Depot prematurely recognized approximately $30 million in funds received from vendors in exchange for the company's merchandising and marketing efforts instead of recognizing the funds over the relevant reporting periods in a manner consistent with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. In November 2007, the company restated those financials and announced a material weakness in its internal controls over financial reporting that resulted from the failure of its personnel responsible for negotiating agreements with vendors to communicate all of the relevant information to financial accounting personnel.
Corporate conductSettlementAgainst
Office Depot, Inc. settlement over consumer deception
The settlement involving Office Depot, Inc. concerns computer repair and technical services.
The FTC is sending refund checks to more than 541,000 people who paid for repairs and technical services when they took their computers to Office Depot or Office Max stores for a free “PC Health Check.” The FTC says that, between 2009 and November 2016, Office Depot and a software provider did scans and told people their computers had malware symptoms — only it wasn’t true.
Support.com, which is owned by Office Depot, agreed to pay another $10 million for its role in the alleged scheme, which, according to the FTC, was first flagged by store employees.
Boca Raton, Florida-based Office Depot Inc. agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations that the office supply retailer tricked customers into spending millions of dollars on repairs by deceptively claiming it had found malware symptoms or infections on consumers' computers.
Office Depot and Tech Support Firm Will Pay $35 Million to Settle FTC Allegations That They Tricked Consumers into Buying Costly Computer Repair Services
Office Depot, Inc. and its tech support software provider Support.com, Inc., settled Federal Trade Commission allegations that the two companies tricked customers into buying millions of dollars' worth of computer repair and technical services by deceptively claiming their software had found malware on the customers' computers.
Office Depot and Tech Support Firm Will Pay $35 Million to Settle FTC Allegations That They Tricked Consumers into Buying Costly Computer Repair Services
Office Depot and Tech Support Firm Will Pay $35 Million to Settle FTC Allegations That They Tricked Consumers into Buying Costly Computer Repair Services | Federal Trade Commission
Office Depot and Support.com used PC Health Check, a software program, as a sales tool to convince consumers to purchase tech repair services from Office Depot and OfficeMax, Inc., which merged in 2013.
Office Depot, Inc. and a California-based tech support software provider have agreed to pay a total of $35 million to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the companies tricked customers into buying millions of dollars’ worth of computer repair and technical services by deceptively claiming their software had found malware symptoms on the customers’ computers.
Office Depot and Tech Support Firm Will Pay $35 Million to Settle FTC Allegations That They Tricked Consumers into Buying Costly Computer Repair Services
Office Depot paid $25 million while its software supplier, Support.com, Inc., paid $10 million as part of 2019 settlements with the FTC.
Support.com provided and the Office Depot Companies used the PC Health Check Program at Office Depot and OfficeMax retail locations to sell computer repair or technical services to consumers.
In its court filing [PDF], the FTC said Office Depot (and Office Max, a subsidiary chain) customers were in some cases charged as much as $300 for bogus malware repairs and unneeded security software.
Corporate conductConfirmedAgainst
OFFICE DEPOT, INC. — faces antitrust enforcement action
The documented action involving OFFICE DEPOT, INC. concerns faces antitrust enforcement action.
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ________________________________________________ ) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) Case No.: 1:97CV00701 ) Judge: TFH STAPLES, INC. ) ) and ) ) OFFICE DEPOT, INC. ) ) Defendants.