Wholesale Internet Solutions LLC

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
 
Paragraph 2: "This information revealed that Ms. [redacted]’s website was receiving relatively well and steady traffic from Google search users (“campaign”)."
I reject this.  The 'traffic' that went to my website was paltry, not steady or 'well.'
Paragraph 3:  "The Complaint again alleges that WIS breached the terms of its internet marketing agreement with Ms. [redacted].  Specifically, Ms. [redacted] believes WIS failed to deliver results that were promised during WIS’s sales pitch for search engine optimization. Ms. [redacted] claims that WIS did not provide her with the services she was promised because she was not at the top of page one.  At the time the advertisement service was purchased, however, WIS did not and does not make any promises or guarantees about results.  WIS’s services, like all search engine optimization services, take time and results often depend on variables outside of WIS’s control. As such, WIS cannot and did not guarantee Ms. [redacted] continued referrals or to be at the top of the search engine at all times. Accordingly, it was not atypical that in the initial month of service, the search terms for the campaign are not been sufficiently optimized to trigger enough results for Ms. [redacted] to notice any change in her business volume. However, WIS continues to firmly believe that Ms. [redacted] would have seen tangible results over time."
I reject this.  The traffic in months 2 and 3 was just as paltry and slow.  I never received a single call or email in all three months from this service.  Also, to reiterate, the sales agent said this was an ad that would be placed at the top of Google.  She did NOT explain that this had anything to do with SEO.  She also stated that other agents are so happy, they do not ever cancel.  
Paragraph 4:  "According to the agreement Ms. [redacted] personally guaranteed, WIS has no guarantee of results. WIS makes no representations or guarantees regarding effectiveness or timeliness of the services in meeting Ms. [redacted]’s business objectives. By agreeing to these terms, Ms. [redacted] also agreed not to disparage or defame WIS in any respect or to make any derogatory comments, whether written (on public forums, Attorney General, Revdex.com, blogs, social networks, etc.), regarding WIS."
I also reject this.  As a citizen of the United States of America, I am entitled to the right of freedom of speech.  The Revdex.com was established to keep businesses honest, so you should not be afraid of it.  If you are, that says a lot right there.
Paragraph 5:  "WIS grounds itself on honest business practices and trains its representatives to not overpromise on its services. This includes provided accurate and original reports and accounting. Thus, WIS avoids the pitfalls of intentional and innocent misrepresentation. On the other hand, WIS does offer its prospective customers statistical information regarding past customers’ success. Also, an estimate is offered to provide a prospective customer with an idea of what WIS’s services could do for the customer’s business. Here, WIS did just that. WIS provided an estimate – not a guaranty – of the effectiveness of WIS’s services. If Ms. [redacted] perceived this notion mistakenly, it is unfortunate; nevertheless, WIS should not be penalized for making a good faith sales effort to potential customers."
I could not possibly reject this statement more.  Your sales representative overpromised to an obscene level, and it was intentional, no doubt for a commission.  I was NOT offered an estimate or statistical information.  That is an outright fallacy.  It sounds like you are attempting to cover for a rep who did not do her job as asked.
Paragraph 6:  "As a modest business enterprise, WIS diligently strives to provide a quality service to its customers. As in every business, there are always those who will be unsatisfied with the business’s practices, product/service, or customer interaction, albeit all legal and professional. WIS provides in its contract all the material terms that obligates each party to perform. Every customer has the duty to read those terms, and if she does not, the knowledge of those terms are imputed on her regardless. WIS did not breach the contract and provided services rendered to Ms. [redacted]. Therefore, pursuant to the terms of the contract, WIS is entitled to the payment for services provided. It follows that there was not any breach of the agreement between WIS and Ms. [redacted], and that Ms. [redacted] is not entitled to recover any portion of the amount paid for WIS’s services."
A modest business practice, really?  How is this for modest?  I am a sole agent.  I am a new agent.  I make under $20,000 a year right now and I purchased your system hoping desperately to turn it around, as your sales rep promised it would.  I am a real person with hopes and dreams and a family to feed and you intentionally preyed on my naïveté.  This is not a quality service, and that's why your representative over-promised results and omitted necessary information.  I understand contracts.  What I do not understand is unethical practices.  I asked to cancel 15 days in when I realized what a huge mistake I'd made.  
A mutually-beneficial resolution is this:  I will absorb the set-up fee of $99 and 15 days of the service, which I calculate to be $147 ($299/30.5 days, times 15 days), only.  I want the rest of the money refunded, from the day I requested cancelation forward to the expiration of the contract.
Sincerely,[redacted]

To Whom It May Concern:Our firm has the pleasure of representing Wholesale Internet Solutions, LLC (“WIS”).  This letter is in response to the October 27, 2015 letter regarding the Revdex.com Complaint, #[redacted] (“Complaint”), made by Mr. [redacted] of [redacted]...

(“[redacted]”).  This letter will address Mr. [redacted]’ claims with the hopes of achieving an amicable resolution.On or around September 12, 2014, WIS contacted Mr. [redacted]’ and offered to provide internet marketing services for [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] accepted the offer from WIS and decided to have WIS market his business.  In exchange for these services, Mr. [redacted] agreed to pay WIS a start-up fee of $99.00 and recurring monthly payments of $250.00. On October 03, 2014, statistical information was generated for Mr. [redacted] to provide insight on his new account showing an increase in placement, clicks, and impressions. Nevertheless, statistical information on the number of clicks and the effectiveness of WIS’s services is more reliable the longer [redacted] holds an account with WIS. WIS provides month-to-month service so that its customers can assess the value of the advertising and determine if they want to continue. On November 14, 2014, Mr. [redacted] requested his account with WIS be terminated.The Complaint alleges that WIS breached the terms of its internet marketing agreement with Mr. [redacted].  Specifically, Mr. [redacted] believes WIS failed to deliver results that were promised during WIS’s sales pitch for search engine optimization. Mr. [redacted] claims that WIS did not provide him with the services he was promised because he was not “at the top of page one.”  At the time the advertisement service was purchased, however, WIS did not and does not make any promises or guarantees about results.  WIS’s services, like all search engine optimization services (“SEO”), take time and results often depend on variables outside of WIS’s control. For example, search engines change their algorithms, impacting an ad’s placement, possible resulting in a loss of clicks. As you can see, WIS cannot and did not guarantee Mr. [redacted] to be fully implemented and operational within the first month. WIS believes that Mr. [redacted] would have seen more results like he had expected over time and that Mr. [redacted] was provided reporting indicated an increase in trafficking. The $250.00 charge is meant to be a monthly budget to push the advertising campaign.  The way the advertising words work is that it takes time to rise to a premium position.  As such, WIS cannot and did not guarantee Mr. [redacted] continued referrals or to be at the top of the search engine at all times.Further, the Complaint alleges that Mr. [redacted] never received a status update from WIS when asked.  This allegation has no merit as WIS Customer Service department responded the same day to Mr. [redacted] request to change the tagline on his advertisement on October 8, 2014.  Mr. [redacted] continues to allege that WIS did not respond to his request regarding the traffic report of his site. However, WIS informed Mr. [redacted] upon signing up when he needed a report regarding his advertisement traffic report, he would need to send a written request and a report would be provided to him within 24-48 hours.  A traffic report was in fact provided to Mr. [redacted]. Every email Mr. [redacted] sent to WIS was responded and replied to. On November 14, 2014, Mr. [redacted] sent WIS another email, in which WIS responded to the same day. In this email, WIS’s response acknowledged Mr. [redacted] desire to cancel his services and informed him that his ad would remain up until the end of the billing cycle. Because Mr. [redacted] ad was up and running, as well as accruing traffic, through each month that Mr. [redacted] was billed, no refund is due to him.WIS flatly rejects the contention that Mr. [redacted] is owed any return from WIS. As explicitly, explained to Mr. [redacted], once the request was received to cancel the account the ad would remain until the end of the current billing cycle. WIS is not in the practice of overcharging their customers and WIS did not incorrectly charge or overcharge Mr. [redacted].  Mr. [redacted] was charged for the services provided until they’d been concluded, as per his cancellation notice.   While it is unfortunate that Mr. [redacted] was unaware that if he failed to cancel within three days he would be charged for one month’s service, a cancellation period, and a subsequent fee, is standard business practice for SEO’s and was part of the agreement between Mr. [redacted] and WIS. It follows that there was not any breach of the agreement between WIS and Mr. [redacted], and that Mr. [redacted] is not entitled to recover any portion of the $250.00 paid for each month of WIS’s services. WIS received two chargebacks due to Mr. [redacted] disputing the billing with his bank, which is why he was sent to collections.WIS strives to provide great customer service to their merchants and would like to see a mutually beneficial resolution to this situation. Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to email [redacted]   For the firm,/s/[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
I was contacted by Ed P[redacted] from WIS on or around September 22 in reference to a unit I own.  I along with an associate both spoke to Ed P[redacted] on this call and another.  Ed P[redacted] guaranteed a 30% increase in my bookings.  He repeated this several times.  Perhaps Ed P[redacted] missed his training and was unaware of ethical business practices.  WIS can flatly deny the truth if they choose, however, this does not change the facts.  At any time, if you would like to speak to my associate, please let me know as she will corroborate these facts.  Once again, you cannot deny the truth, many comments left all over the internet about WIS clearly speaks of this company lies, and same “scam” they ran on me.  It is a shame I did not look up this company before I engaged with them.  So now we understand that from the attorney the 30% statistic is true,  Ed P[redacted] appears to have taken it a step farther in guarantying a 30% increase in bookings.  Either this is normal business practice and WIS operates this way purposely, or this company does not believe in customer satisfaction as the attorney states.  Misrepresentation then deny it.  The reports sent by Ed P[redacted] clearly are fabricated in one way or another. They can prove the validity of their reports by providing an unaltered [redacted] Ad Words click report, not their own doctored report.  As stated previously, I did not receive any phone calls, bookings, 30% increase in traffic of bookings, AND the reports that WIS sent have conflicting information on specific days.  My ad appeared only 1 time in the #1 spot on [redacted].  Never again was it in the top 5 or 10. As stated previously, I was never told there would be a 14 day optimization period, this only came to light after I made my complaint.   WIS is inconsistent with what they represent they can and will do, have done and wants to do.I will not do business with a company that has an extremely bad online reputation, a reputation for falsifying reports and lying.  I also will not do business with a company that has lied to me and an associate, falsified documents and then lied about it.  There is no room for a relationship.  Amicable resolution will only be achieved with a full refund. 
Sincerely,[redacted]

To Whom It May Concern:Our firm has the pleasure of representing Wholesale Internet Solutions, LLC (“WIS”).  This letter is in response to the October 10, 2015 letter regarding the Revdex.com Complaint, #[redacted] (“Complaint”), made by [redacted] and her Realtor Business...

(“Company”).  This letter will address Ms. [redacted] claims with the hopes of achieving an amicable resolution.On or around April 6, 2015, WIS contacted Ms. [redacted] and offered to provide internet marketing services for her Company. Ms. [redacted] accepted the offer from WIS and decided to have WIS market her business.  In exchange for these services, Ms. [redacted] agreed to pay WIS a start-up fee of $49.99 and $300.00 for the initial ninety days (“Agreement”). Moreover, Ms. [redacted] also agreed to recurring monthly payments of $300.00 after the Agreement. WIS provides month-to-month service so that its customers can assess the value of the advertising and determine if they want to continue with it.  Customers such as Ms. [redacted] are not locked into contracts, and they may cancel at any time, for any reason. On April 15, 2015, Ms. [redacted] wanted a breakdown of how information was generated to assess the value of the service. WIS explained that she would receive a report on how many people “clicked” on her website after the service was in effect. Nevertheless, statistical information on the number of “clicks” and the effectiveness of WIS’s services for her Company is more reliable the longer Company holds an account with WIS. After the initial ninety days, on September 17, 2015, Ms. [redacted] requested her account with WIS be terminated. It was Ms. [redacted] decision to cancel her service before WIS’s services were fully operational and effective.  Ms. [redacted] alleges that she “spent $300 and got zero results.” This allegation seems to be rooted in the fact of Ms. [redacted] fundamental misunderstanding of internet search engine optimization services (“SEO”). WIS provides a service that, over time, leads to increased traffic on a client’s website which can lead to increased business. WIS is confident that if Ms. [redacted] would allow WIS more time to optimize her Company’s search terms there would be a marked increase in traffic to her Company’s website. WIS’s services, like all SEO’s, take time and results often depend on variables outside of WIS’s control. Accordingly, it was not atypical that in the initial few months of service, the search terms for Ms. [redacted] Company campaign had not been sufficiently optimized to trigger enough results for Ms. [redacted] to notice any change in her business volume. However, WIS firmly believes that Ms. [redacted] would have seen tangible results over time. Furthermore, Ms. [redacted] agreed to the terms and conditions of the Agreement. WIS records show that Ms. [redacted] had one correspondence with WIS’s customer service (mentioned above). There was no correspondence throughout the ninety days that would have led WIS to believe that MS. [redacted] was not happy with the service, until the request to cancel in September 2015. This means that Ms. [redacted] has enjoyed the benefit of WIS’s service for the initial three-month period, without any complaint, and yet demands a full refund for both charges. This is fundamentally unfair and unjust. Nonetheless, WIS is committed to customer service and satisfaction.  With this in mind, WIS is willing to extend Ms. [redacted] service until October free of charge. This will allow WIS to show over a significant amount of time, the results Ms. [redacted] can experience with WIS’s services. WIS would like to offer this position if and when Ms. [redacted] re-opens her account with WIS. As a valued customer, WIS would like to work with Ms. [redacted] and explore the possibilities of helping her reach her desired marketing result and to work with her so that her Google campaigns are tailored to her needs. WIS strives to provide great customer service to their merchants and would like to see a mutually beneficial resolution to this situation. Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to email [redacted]@attorneygl.com.   For the firm,/s/James ** H[redacted], Esq.Global Legal Law Firm, LLP[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
WIS indicated they would send report as soon as campaign was up and live.  I had to ask for this information, it was not sent voluntarily as said.Ed P[redacted] explained once ad went live, I would immediately see increased booking by 30%.  I did not have to wait for optimization.  There was not mention of optimization for 14 days, one month or any waiting time.  My associate was witness to this call and representations. Once my complaint was submitted, WIS says there is a waiting period and that I would see results over time.  This is misrepresentation, intentional.  If this is something that takes time, why did my ad campaign only appear 1 time at number one,  that was the day he sent a screenshot of the ad in the number one spot immediately after the campaign began.    I checked multiple times a day, every day, until cancellation and it was never in the top 5.   You cannot have it both ways.The 2 reports sent by WIS are conflicted.  The numbers they report are different for same time period.  How can this be?But more importantly, and proof of fraud is the fact that the screen shot of the [redacted] Ad Words report cuts off the “clicks” column.  The WIS crafted report claims 14 clicks on my ad. The other report gives a different number.   The fact they cut off the click portion of the [redacted] Ad Words report, I believe proves that WIS generates false and fraudulent click reports.  Reading other reviews, on [redacted], Revdex.com and Rip Off report, consumer complaints, and many, many others, I am not the only one with this belief.This company intentionally misleads people.  I will not work with a company that lacks ethics, morals, and integrity.  This company is not committed to customer satisfaction as they say.  They can’t be, they can’t even be honest. 
 
 
 
 
Sincerely,[redacted]

To Whom It May Concern: Our firm has the pleasure of representing WholesaleInternet Solutions, LLC (“WIS”).  Thisletter is in response to the October 8, 2015 letter regarding the Revdex.com Complaint, #[redacted](“Complaint”), made by [redacted] of [redacted] (“[redacted]...

[redacted]”).  This letter will address Mr. [redacted]’s claimswith the hopes of achieving an amicable resolution. On or around August 24, 2015, WIS contacted Mr. [redacted]and offered to provide internet marketing services for [redacted]. Mr. [redacted]accepted the offer from WIS and decided to have WIS market his business.  In exchange for these services, Mr. [redacted]agreed to pay WIS a start-up fee of $99.99 and recurring monthly payments of $400.00.On August 28, 2015, statistical information was generated for Mr. [redacted] toprovide insight on his new account with WIS. Nevertheless, statisticalinformation on the number of “hits” and the effectiveness of WIS’s services for[redacted] is more reliable the longer [redacted] holds an account withWIS. WIS provides month-to-month service so that its customers can assess thevalue of the advertising and determine if they want to continue.  Customers, such as Mr. [redacted], are not lockedinto contracts and they may cancel at any time, for any reason. On September24, 2015, Mr. [redacted] requested his account with WIS be terminated. It was Mr. [redacted]’sdecision to cancel his service before WIS’s services were fully operational andeffective.   The Complaint alleges that Mr. [redacted] paid for aservice “for nothing.” This allegation seems to be rooted in the fact that Mr. [redacted]has not been able to communicate with WIS and/or Mr. [redacted]’s fundamentalmisunderstanding of internet search engine optimization services (“SEO”). WISprovides a service that, over time, leads to increased traffic on a client’swebsite which can lead to increased business. WIS is confident that if Mr. [redacted]would allow WIS more time to optimize [redacted]’s search terms there wouldbe a marked increase in traffic to [redacted]’s website. WIS’s services, likeall SEO’s, take time and results often depend on variables outside of WIS’scontrol. Accordingly, it was not atypical that in the initial month of service,the search terms for [redacted]’s campaign had not been sufficientlyoptimized to trigger enough results for Mr. [redacted] to notice any change in hisbusiness volume. However, WIS firmly believes that Mr. [redacted] would have seen tangibleresults over time.  Furthermore, WIS flatly rejects the contention thatthey lied or misrepresented their services to Mr. [redacted] in any way. WIS is notin the practice of lying to their customers and WIS made no lies ormisrepresentations in this instance. While it is unfortunate that Mr. [redacted] wasunaware that if he failed to cancel within three days he would be charged forone month’s service, a cancellation period, and a subsequent fee, is standardbusiness practice for SEO’s and was part of the agreement between Mr. [redacted] andWIS. It follows that there was not any breach of the agreement between WIS andMr. [redacted], and that Mr. [redacted] is not entitled to recover any portion of the $400.00paid for each month of WIS’s services.  Nonetheless, WIS is committedto customer service and satisfaction. With this in mind, WIS has agreed to refund the $400 charge for themonth of September and extend Mr. [redacted]’s service until November free ofcharge. WIS has recorded in its communications with Mr. [redacted], “Again, I canrefund $400, or run your campaign through November at no charge as a courtesy,but I recommend we move it back to either an all device campaign, extend themileage radius; which you were reluctant to do. Please let me know which optionworks for you, [redacted]. Thanks.” However, Mr. [redacted] rejected this offer. WISwould like to reoffer this position if and when he re-opens his account withWIS. As a valued customer, WIS would like to work with Mr. [redacted] and explorethe possibilities of helping him reach his desired marketing result and to workwith him so that his Google campaigns are tailored to his needs.  WIS strives to provide great customer service to theirmerchants and would like to see a mutually beneficial resolution to thissituation. Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate toemail [redacted]@attorneygl.com    For the firm,/s/James **H[redacted], Esq.Global Legal Resources,LLPJCH/ksc

To Whom It May Concern:As you are aware, our firm has the pleasure of representing Wholesale Internet Solutions, LLC (“WIS”).  This letter is in response to the October 21, 2015 letter regarding the Revdex.com Complaint, #[redacted] (“Complaint”), made by [redacted] who runs a [redacted] near Tampa, Florida (“[redacted]”).  This letter will again address Ms. [redacted]’s claims with the hopes of achieving an amicable resolution.To reiterate the facts, on or around September 22, 2015, WIS contacted Ms. [redacted] and offered to provide internet marketing services for her [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] accepted the offer from WIS and decided to have WIS market her [redacted].  In exchange for these services, Ms. [redacted] agreed to pay WIS a start-up fee of $75.00 and recurring monthly payments of $250.00. Recently, statistical information was generated for Ms. [redacted] providing insight on her new account with WIS. This information revealed Ms. [redacted]’s website was receiving relatively well and steady traffic from [redacted] search users (“campaign”). WIS provides month-to-month service so that its customers can assess the value of the advertising and determine if they want to continue with it.  Customers such as Ms. [redacted] are not locked [redacted] contracts, and they may cancel at any time, for any reason. On October 5, 2015 Ms. [redacted] requested her account with WIS be terminated. It was Ms. [redacted]’s decision to cancel her service before WIS’s services were fully operational and effective.  This (2nd) Complaint alleges, again, that WIS is engaged in fraudulent business practices. Yet, Ms. [redacted] is inconsistent in her statements about what WIS represented. First, Ms. [redacted] said, “there was not mention of optimization for 14 day…” Optimization is part of WIS’s service to trigger more results and thus more traffic for a client’s website. However, Ms. [redacted]’s account only lasted for thirteen (13) days before she terminated the contract with WIS. Moreover, Ms. [redacted] alleges that the WIS representative told her she “would immediately see increased booking by 30%.” As was mentioned in our previous letter, WIS flatly rejects the contention that they lied or misrepresented their services to Ms. [redacted] in any way. WIS does not engage in the illegal practice of falsifying information in its statistical reports to customers. WIS is not in the practice of lying to their customers and WIS made no lies or misrepresentations in this instance. WIS proudly grounds itself in training its employees in honest, standard business practices. This training includes avoiding any type of intentional or accidental misrepresentations of WIS’s services. WIS relays the success it has had with current customers to prospective customers to show the effectiveness of WIS’s services, but they are never portrayed as guarantees of what a business would look like to prospective customers. Furthermore, the 30% increase in business has been a statistic generated by WIS based on their other client accounts. Since Ms. [redacted] terminated her account after only 13 days, she may have believed she did not see results. However, WIS statistical reports show her account did fairly well and generated relatively more traffic than the average starting account. Moreover, as noted on the previous letter, WIS’s services are most effective the longer clients stay on. Time allows WIS to optimize the search terms, analyze which search terms are most effective, and select the most efficient WIS tools to generate more traffic on her website.Ultimately, WIS is committed to customer service and satisfaction.  With this in mind, WIS is willing to re-extend its offer with the same terms of the previous agreement she had with WIS to help Ms. [redacted]’s website receive a higher volume of traffic. WIS would like to reoffer this position if and when Ms. [redacted] re-opens her account with WIS. As a valued customer, WIS would like to work with Ms. [redacted] and explore the possibilities of helping her reach her desired marketing result and to work with her so that her [redacted] campaigns are tailored to her needs. WIS strives to provide great customer service to their merchants and would like to see a mutually beneficial resolution to this situation. Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to email [redacted]@attorneygl.com.   For the firm,/s/James ** H[redacted], Esq.Global Legal Resources, LLPJCH/ksc

To Whom It May Concern:Our firm has the pleasure of representing Wholesale Internet Solutions, LLC (“WIS”).  This letter is in response to a May 15, 2015 letter regarding the Revdex.com Complaint, #[redacted] (“Complaint”), made by [redacted] of [redacted]...

(“[redacted]”).  This letter will address Ms. [redacted] claims with the hopes of achieving an amicable resolution.On or around February 12, 2015, WIS contacted Ms. [redacted] and offered to provide Internet marketing services for the [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] accepted the offer from WIS and decided to have WIS market her business.  In exchange for these services, Ms. [redacted] agreed to pay WIS a one-time setup fee of $124.99 and recurring monthly payments of $450.00. On May 7, 2015, Ms. [redacted] account with WIS was cancelled upon her request. WIS provides month-to-month service so that its customers can assess the value of the advertising and determine if they want to continue with it.  Customers such as Ms. [redacted]are not locked into contracts, and they may cancel at any time, for any reason.  It was Ms. [redacted] decisionto cancel her service even though WIS had in fact notified Ms. [redacted] of status of her ads.   The Complaint alleges that WIS “never received a follow-up call, any analytics report or anything.” Further, Ms. [redacted] alleges that she “never saw our ad at all.” This allegation seems to be rooted in Ms. [redacted] observations about not consistently seeing her business ad on Google searches. However, according to WIS records, on March 28, 2015, a WIS representative sent Ms. [redacted] a status report of the ads for the [redacted]. This included images of the ad placements on mobile devices, daily activities and “clicks” on the website, and the average ad position on Google over the last 30 days.Ms. [redacted] complaint appears to come from a fundamental misunderstanding of Internet search engine optimization services (“SEO”). WIS provides a service that, over time, leads to increased traffic on a client’s website which can lead to increased business. The full service of the Google campaign, however, takes time to be completely implemented and effective. In accordance with its standard business practices, WIS affirms to its customers the essential component of time in order to see customer-desired results.WIS is confident that if Ms. [redacted] would allow WIS more time to optimize the [redacted]’s search terms there would be a marked increase in traffic to Ms. [redacted] website. WIS’s services, like all SEO’s, take timeand results often depend on variables outside of WIS’s control. Thus, to use WIS’s service as the sole criteria of whether the [redacted] received more business is unreasonable. However, WIS firmly believes that Ms. [redacted] would have seen tangible results over more time.  Furthermore, WIS flatly rejects the contention that they lied or misrepresented their services to Ms. [redacted] in any way. WIS is not in the practice of lying to their customers and WIS made no lies or misrepresentations in this instance. A cancellation period, and a subsequent fee, is standard business practice for SEO’s and was part of the agreement between Ms. [redacted] and WIS. It follows that there was not any breach of the agreement between WIS and Ms. [redacted] and that Ms. [redacted] is not entitled to recover any portion of the $124.99 (for the initial setup) and monthly fee of $450.00 for three months of WIS’s services. In any event, WIS is committed to customer service and satisfaction. As a valued customer, WIS would like to continue to work with Ms. [redacted] and explore the possibilities of helping her reach her desired marketing result and to work with her so that her Google campaigns are tailored to her needs. WIS strives to provide great service and would like to see a mutually beneficial resolution to this situation. Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to email [redacted]@glrlegal.com.   For the firm,[redacted], Esq.Global Legal Resources, LLP[redacted]

To Whom It May Concern:Our firm has the pleasure of representing WholesaleInternet Solutions, LLC (“WIS”).  Thisletter is in response to a May 14, 2015 letter regarding the Revdex.com Complaint, #[redacted] (“Complaint”),made by [redacted] of [redacted] (“Ms....

[redacted]”).  This letter will address Ms. [redacted]’s claimswith the hopes of achieving an amicable resolution.On or around April 22, 2015, WIS contacted Ms. [redacted]and offered to provide Internet marketing services for [redacted]. Ms.[redacted] accepted the offer from WIS and decided to have WIS market herbusiness.  In exchange for theseservices, Ms. [redacted] agreed to pay WIS a one-time setup fee of $99.99 andrecurring monthly payments of $200.00. On April 28, 2015, Ms. [redacted]’s accountwith WIS was cancelled upon her request. WIS provides month-to-month service sothat its customers can assess the value of the advertising and determine ifthey want to continue with it.  Customerssuch as Ms. [redacted] are not locked into contracts, and they may cancel at anytime, for any reason.  It was Ms. [redacted]’sdecision to cancel her service before WIS’s services were fully operational andeffective.   The Complaint alleges that WIS is “…one of these types[of] scams.” This allegation seems to be rooted in Ms. [redacted]’s observationsabout not consistently seeing her business ad at the top of certain “key-word” Googlesearches. Ms. [redacted]’s complaint appears to come from a fundamentalmisunderstanding of Internet search engine optimization services (“SEO”). WISprovides a service that, over time,leads to increased traffic on a client’s website which can lead to increasedbusiness. The full service of the Google campaign, however, takes time to becompletely implemented and effective. In accordance with its standard businesspractices, WIS affirms to its customers the essential component of time inorder to see customer-desired results.WIS is confident that if Ms. [redacted] would allow WISmore time to optimize [redacted]’s search terms there would be a markedincrease in traffic to Ms. [redacted]’s website. WIS’s services, like all SEO’s,take time and results often depend on variables outside of WIS’s control.Accordingly, it was not atypical that in the initial month of service, or, inthis case the initial three and a half days, the search terms for [redacted] campaign had not been sufficiently optimized to trigger constant resultsfor Ms. [redacted] to notice any change in her business volume. However, WIS firmlybelieves that Ms. [redacted] would have seen tangible results over time. Furthermore, WIS flatly rejects the contention thatthey lied or misrepresented their services to Ms. [redacted] in any way. WIS isnot in the practice of lying to their customers and WIS made no lies ormisrepresentations in this instance. A cancellation period, and a subsequentfee, is standard business practice for SEO’s and was part of the agreementbetween Ms. [redacted] and WIS. It follows that there was not any breach of theagreement between WIS and Ms. [redacted] and that Ms. [redacted] is not entitled torecover any portion of the $299.99 paid for one month of WIS’s services. In any event, WIS is committed to customer service andsatisfaction. As a valued customer, WIS would like to continue to work with Ms.[redacted] and explore the possibilities of helping her reach her desired marketingresult and to work with her so that her Google campaigns are tailored to herneeds. WIS strives to provide great service and would like to see a mutuallybeneficial resolution to this situation. Should you have any questions or concernsplease do not hesitate to email [redacted]@glrlegal.com.   For the firm,[redacted] Esq.Global Legal Resources, LLP[redacted]

To Whom It May Concern: Our firm has the pleasure of representing WholesaleInternet Solutions, LLC (“WIS”).  Thisletter is in response to a June 3, 2015 letter regarding the Revdex.com Complaint, #[redacted] (“Complaint”),made by [redacted] of [redacted] ...

This letter will address Ms. [redacted]claims with the hopes of achieving an amicable resolution. On or around May 20, 2015, WIS contacted Ms. [redacted]and offered to provide Internet marketing services for [redacted] Ms.[redacted] accepted the offer from WIS and decided to have WIS market herbusiness.  In exchange for theseservices, Ms. [redacted] agreed to pay WIS a one-time setup fee of $49.99 and arecurring monthly payment of $300.00. On or about June 1, 2015, Ms. [redacted]account with WIS was cancelled upon her request. WIS provides month-to-monthservice so that its customers can assess the value of the advertising anddetermine if they want to continue with it. Customers such as Ms. [redacted] are not locked into contracts, and theymay cancel at any time, for any reason. It was Ms. [redacted] decision to discontinue her service.    The Complaint alleges that there was “fraudulent sales”conducted by WIS. Further, Ms. [redacted] alleges that she never saw her ads atall. This allegation seems to be rooted in Ms. [redacted] observations aboutnot consistently seeing her business ad on Google searches. However, accordingto WIS records, on May 29, 2015 a WIS representative sent Ms. [redacted] astatus report of the ads for the Lodge. This included images of the ad placementsviewed from desktops and tablet devices, total searches, clicks on the aditself, and clicks on to the website itself over the last week or so. Ms. [redacted] complaint appears to come from afundamental misunderstanding of Internet search engine optimization services(“SEO”). WIS provides a service that, overtime, leads to increased traffic on a client’s website which can lead toincreased business. The full service of the Google campaign, however, takestime to be completely implemented and effective. In accordance with itsstandard business practices, WIS affirms to its customers the essentialcomponent of time in order to see customer-desired results. WIS is confident that if Ms. [redacted] would allow WISmore time to optimize the [redacted] search terms there would be a markedincrease in traffic to Ms. [redacted] website. WIS’s services, like all SEO’s,take time and results often depend on variables outside of WIS’s control. Thus,to use WIS’s service as the sole criteria of whether [redacted] receivedmore business is unreasonable. However, WIS firmly believes that Ms. [redacted] wouldhave seen tangible results over more time.  Moreover, Ms. [redacted] apparently misunderstands thebudget allocation for the Google ad campaign. The monthly fee is employed toprovide for the ad to appear on the Google searches when the relevant terms areused. As discussed above, it takes time and expense to generate the outcomesthat Ms. [redacted] is undoubtedly searching for. This is precisely why we havea monthly charge to replenish the funds necessary to reach the results WIScustomers desire.  Furthermore, WIS flatly rejects the contention thatthey lied or misrepresented their services to Ms. [redacted] in any way. WIS isnot in the practice of lying to their customers and WIS made no deceits ormisrepresentations in this instance. A cancellation period, and a subsequentfee, is standard business practice for SEO’s and was part of the agreementbetween Ms. [redacted] and WIS. Further, there was not any breach of theagreement between WIS and Ms. [redacted] and Ms. [redacted] is not entitled torecover any portion of the $49.99 (for the initial setup) and monthly fee of$300.00 for WIS’s services.  In any event, WIS is committed to customer service andsatisfaction. As a valued customer, WIS would like to continue to work with Ms.[redacted] and explore the possibilities of helping her reach her desiredmarketing result and to work with her so that her Google campaigns are tailoredto her needs. WIS would like to see a mutually beneficial resolution to thissituation. Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate toemail [redacted]@glrlegal.com.    For the firm,/s/[redacted]Huber, Esq.Global LegalResources, LLP[redacted]