Not exact matches
Cambridge Analytica members like Wylie, who recruited Kogan to work with the
company, and Kogan himself, failed to anticipate that handing so much personal data to powerful people might
provide them a new way to saturate Facebook with misleading or downright
false information.
Similarly, a
company should not exclude any
information if the omission makes what is
provided to investors
false or misleading.
This means that any
information a
company provides to investors must be free from
false or misleading statements.
Typical infractions include insider trading, accounting fraud, and
providing false or misleading
information about securities and the
companies that issue them.
Specifically, Defendants made
false and / or misleading statements and / or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company was engaged in predatory lending practices that saddled subprime borrowers and / or those with poor or limited credit histories with high - interest rate debt that they could not repay; (ii) many of the
Company's customers were using Qudian -
provided loans to repay their existing loans, thereby inflating the
Company's revenues and active borrower numbers and increasing the likelihood of defaults; (iii) the
Company was
providing online loans to college students despite a governmental ban on the practice; (iv) the
Company was engaged overly aggressive and improper collection practices; (v) the
Company had understated the number of its non-performing loans in the Registration Statement and Prospectus; (vi) because of the
Company's improper lending, underwriting and collection practices it was subject to a heightened risk of adverse actions by Chinese regulators; (vii) the
Company's largest sales platform and strategic partner, Alipay, and Ant Financial, could unilaterally cap the APR for loans
provided by Qudian; (viii) the
Company had failed to implement necessary safeguards to protect customer data; (ix) data for nearly one million
Company customers had been leaked for sale to the black market, including names, addresses, phone numbers, loan
information, accounts and, in some cases, passwords to CHIS, the state - backed higher - education qualification verification institution in China, subjecting the
Company to undisclosed risks of penalties and financial and reputational harm; and (x) as a result of the foregoing, Qudian's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
The
company at the address in Brentwood confirmed that Martinez not only does not work there but never worked there; Martinez sister did work there which suggests that Martinez
provided a
false work address from day one and that no effort whatsoever was made by Westchester County Probation or Kings County Probation to verify that
information.
FDA squashed an attempt by Pathway Genomics to sell genetic tests at the pharmacy chain Walgreens, and a Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation over the summer found that representatives from genetic testing
companies were
providing false or questionable
information to customers.
Providing false information is a crime, and the credit card
company can ask for proof.
It is illegal for
companies to deceive creditors, create a new identity for customers or suggest that you
provide false information.
If your insurance
company finds you've
provided false information, your whole policy could be void, and you may be added to a fraud list, which other insurers will be able to see, so you'll find it hard to get cover in the future.
As a matter of general agreement any large
company will usually cover most expenses and seek to recover from the driver any payout they were arguably not required to make (such as where you
provided false information); that is another (huge) question entirely, in which you say you are not interested here.
Don't let
companies get away with
providing false information to the government.
Prof. Conduct 123 (2001)(subject to the operational structure and content described in the opinion, a lawyer may affiliate with an online legal services website); Nebraska Op. 07 - 05 (lawyer may participate in internet lawyer directory which identifies itself as a directory, disclaims being a referral service and only lists basic
information about lawyers without recommending specific lawyers and charges a reasonable, flat annual advertising fee); New Jersey Committee on Attorney Advertising Op. 36 (2006)(lawyer may pay flat fee to internet marketing
company for exclusive website listing for particular county in specific practice area if listing includes prominent, unmistakable disclaimer stating the listings are paid advertisements and not endorsements or authorized referrals); North Carolina Op. 2004 - 1 (lawyer may participate in for - profit online service that is a hybrid referral service - legal directory,
provided there is no fee - sharing with the service and communications are truthful); Oregon Op. 2007 - 180 (2007)(lawyer may pay nationwide internet referral service for listing if listing is not
false or misleading and does not imply that the lawyer can represent clients outside jurisdictions of the lawyer's license, fee is not based on number of referrals, retained clients or revenue generated by listing and the service does not exercise discretion in matching clients with lawyers); Rhode Island 2005 - 01 (permitting website that enables lawyers to post
information about their services and respond to anonymous requests for legal services in exchange for flat annual membership fee if website exercises no discretion over which requests lawyers may access); South Carolina 01 - 03 (lawyer may pay internet advertising service fee determined by the number of «hits» that the service produces for the lawyer
provided that the service does not steer business to any particular lawyer and the payments are not based on whether user ultimately becomes a client); Texas Op. 573 (2006)(lawyer may participate in for - profit internet service that matches potential clients and lawyers if selection process is fully automated and performed by computers without the exercise of human discretion); Virginia Advertising Op.
COLORADO LAW REQUIRES US TO NOTIFY YOU OF THE FOLLOWING: It is unlawful to knowingly
provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or
information to an insurance
company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the
company.
Any insurance
company or agent of an insurance
company who knowingly
provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or
information to a policy holder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policy holder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award payable for insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado Division of Insurance within the Department of Regulatory Agencies.
Intentionally
providing false information, failing to
provide information to an insurance
company, or filing a claim with
false information to collect payment illegally.
But what if the policyholder
provided false information or concealed important details in the proposal form, which the LI
company might find out during the investigation stage for claim settlement.
The MARS Rule requires
companies offering mortgage assistance relief services to disclose certain
information to consumers about the services they
provide, bans collection of advance fees, and prohibits
false or misleading claims.