ILNews

AG sues Carmel business over undelivered Colts, sports memorabilia

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Carmel business and its owner face a state consumer protection lawsuit over accusations that the company bilked customers who used its website to pay for autographed photos and memorabilia of Indianapolis Colts player Reggie Wayne and former Colts Peyton Manning and Gary Brackett.

Brett Lemieux and his businesses Ultimate Athlete Ink and Ultimate Sports Connection have been sued in Hamilton County by the office of Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller.

A total of 17 customers said they made online payments of $13 to $450 for sports memorabilia that was never delivered. The complaints involved items totaling $2,416.

Zoeller noted cooperation from the Central Indiana Better Business Bureau, which provided information about customer complaints and evidence necessary to pursue the lawsuit.

According to a statement from the AG’s office, one customer purchased a Reggie Wayne autographed photo for $78.99 but did not receive the item or a refund. Another purchased a Peyton Manning autographed photo for $104.25 and an autographed jersey for $164.50 but didn’t receive either item or a refund.

Five complainants said they paid a total of $535 for gift cards valued at a total of $950 to use at the online store. According to the complaint, none of these customers were able to redeem the gift cards or receive a refund.

The state seeks an injunction against the company from misrepresenting its products and services, consumer restitution, civil penalties, and attorney fees for violations of the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT