What Businesses Can Learn from the “Google Money Tree” Scam

In today’s marketplace, businesses are expected to be transparent, ethical, and forthright in all their dealings. However, some still choose to deceive consumers, leading to long-term consequences that far outweigh any short-term gains. One of the most notable examples of such deception is the case of Jonathan Eborn, the marketer behind the fraudulent work-at-home scheme that operated under the names “Google Money Tree,” “Google Pro,” and “Google Treasure Chest.” In a recent decision, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) obtained a staggering $26.9 million judgment against Eborn for hiding his assets in an effort to escape financial responsibility after a 2010 settlement. The initial case against Eborn and his co-defendants stemmed from deceptive marketing practices, where they falsely promised consumers they could earn $100,000 in just six months with a low-cost kit. The reality, however, was far different. Consumers were unknowingly trapped into paying recurring monthly fees of $72.21, which were never disclosed upfront. While the FTC initially settled with Eborn and his partners in 2010, requiring them to give up assets totaling $3.5 million, the case didn’t end there. Eborn’s failure to report his true financial situation, including hiding significant assets, led to the reinstatement of the full judgment. The court found that he misrepresented his control over businesses, failed to disclose cash and assets totaling over $274,000, and concealed purchases of more than $33,000 in personal property. These deceptive actions not only led to the reinstatement of the original judgment but also reinforced a powerful lesson: misrepresenting your financial condition to the FTC can lead to severe legal and financial consequences. For businesses, this case serves as a stark reminder of the risks involved in misleading marketing practices. Eborn’s scheme relied on the deceptive use of a trusted brand, Google, to lure consumers into a work-at-home offer that was too good to be true. His failure to disclose recurring charges, combined with false promises of income, led to a violation of consumer protection laws and ultimately destroyed his credibility.