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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT