report scams here at dont get scammed Scams and Scammers - Expose hypocrisy and spread respect ! Don't get ripped off! REGISTER
Go Back   scams > Scam Message Board > Internet Scams
Register FAQ Register To Post Member List Promote Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Thread Tools
Old 09-09-2010, 06:35 AM
freddymac freddymac is offline
I am new at
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1

I paid approx. $12, 000 for an idea to be developed that I was unsatisfied with the result, sent it back to Inventionland once and hesitantly signed the contract with a footnote that I didn't like it because it was not the cutting edge product I was promised. Their answer was that it would be rectified by the company that purchased the license agreement and it was shown to 2 companies that have no history of picking up a liscense agreement from them. They charge $340 to repackage for every presentation. I was lied to every step to get me to continue on, getting more wrapped up in it. I turned them in to Western Pa BBB. I wat a refund for not delivering a promised product.

Reply With Quote

Old 09-09-2010, 11:43 AM
nomaxim's Avatar
nomaxim nomaxim is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Stow, OH SOL III
Posts: 2,517
Re: Davison

It usually pays off to check with the BBB first.

BBB Report,
BBB Rating
Based on BBB files, this business has a BBB Rating of F on a scale from A+ to F. Reasons for this F rating include:
* 215 complaints filed against business
* Failure to respond to 4 complaints filed against business
* 20 complaints filed against business that were not resolved
* 5 serious complaints filed against business
* Length of time business has taken to resolve complaint(s)
* Government action(s) against business

Business Contact & Profile
Business Name:
Davison, Inc.
Davison & Associates
Davison 54
Davison Design & Development, Inc.
Davison Inventegration
Invention Inventigrations
Manufacturer's Support Services, Inc.
Business Address: 595 Alpha Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Original Business Start Date: 12/1/1989
George M Davison III, President
Phone Number:
(412) 599-1161
(412) 677-6382
(412) 828-5855
(412) 828-9530
(412) 967-0124
(412) 967-0137
(412) 967-0171
(518) 438-0139
(800) 544-3327
(800) 545-3332
(800) 677-6382
(800) 922-6895
(866) 328-4766 x50127
(866) 643-0914
Fax Number:
(412) 967-0794
BBB Accreditation: This business is not a BBB Accredited Business

Type of Business:

Customer Complaint History
When considering complaint information, please take into account the business's size and volume of transactions, and understand that the nature of complaints and a firm's responses to them are often more important than the number of complaints.

BBB processed a total of 215 complaint(s) about this business in the last 36 months, our standard reporting period. Of the total 215 complaint(s) closed in the last 36 months, 60 were closed in the last 12 months.

These complaints concerned:
14 regarding Advertising Issues
4 regarding Billing or Collection Issues
31 regarding Contract Disputes
5 regarding Customer Services Issues
7 regarding Delivery Issues
3 regarding Guarantee Or Warranty Issues
24 regarding Product Issues
36 regarding Refund Or Exchange Issues
29 regarding Selling Practices
62 regarding Service Issues

These complaints were closed as:
4 No Response
191 Resolved
-45 Administratively Judged Resolved
-33 Assumed Resolved
-84 Delayed Response
-9 Disputed
-17 Resolved
20 Unresolved

Government Action(s)
Federal Trade Commission Order of Final Judgment

The following describes a government action that has been resolved by either a settlement or a decision by a court or administrative agency. If the matter is being appealed, it will be noted below.
In a complaint filed in 1997 by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as part of "Project Mousetrap," it alleges, in part, that Davison & Associates represented that it has successfully marketed many inventions ideas, that those purchasing its services have a good chance of realizing financial gain, that the company prepares objective and expert analysis of marketability and that it has a network of companies with whom it regularly negotiates successful licensing agreements.

The FTC charged that the company made false claims about their selectivity in choosing products to promote, false claims about their track record in turning inventions into profitable products, and false claims about the relationship they had with manufacturers. They charged that the company deceptively claimed that their income came from sharing royalties with inventors rather than from the $800 to $12,000 fees they charged inventors.

The FTC alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements that:

Consumers who bought their invention-promotion services stand a reasonably good chance of realizing financial gain.

Their invention-promotion services helped many of their customers' invention ideas become profitable products.

Their invention-promotion services helped specific inventions become profitable products.

That they have a vast network of corporations with whom they have ongoing relationships and regularly negotiate successful licensing agreements.

That their invention marketing services are necessary for consumers to register their invention ideas.

That they prepare objective and expert analyses of the patentability and marketability of consumers' invention ideas.

The case had been pending when a bench trial in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania began on June 20, 2005. The FTC alleges that defendants have engaged in deceptive practices in connection with their invention promotion business in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC seeked a permanent injunction and ancillary equitable relief.

After three weeks of testimony, the parties filed proposed finding of fact and conclusions of law for the court's consideration. The parties made all submissions and the court rendered its judgment on March 17, 2006. The court ordered that the defendants are enjoined from making, or assisting others in making, any material false representation or material omission in connection with providing any research, patent, marketing, and/or invention-promotion services.

The U.S. district court judge has ordered the company to pay $26 million in consumer redress and has ordered a permanent halt to the bogus claims the company used to recruit customers. The court also ordered that in future dealings with consumers, the company make specific, detailed disclosures about their track record in helping inventors market their ideas. The judge agreed that the company had engaged in deceptive practices, noting that even after he had issued an order barring deceptive claims, defendants continued to engage in deceptive practices, albeit in slightly different forms.

To prevent those practices, the judge ordered the company and its principals to pay $26 million for consumer redress and to provide any future clients with a 10-point disclosure statement to allow them objectively to measure the value of the defendants' assistance. He ordered that when they highlight or advertise specific consumer products or ideas in advertising, they disclose whether the inventor earned royalties that exceeded the total amount of fees paid by the consumer to the defendants. If the defendants claim that they have "matched" or "targeted" an invention to a corporation, they must disclose how many submissions they have made to that corporation in the past five years. He required them to disclose that the "Pre-Inventegration" and "modeling" services they sold to inventors were not necessary to achieve licensing agreements and that they disclose that they are not providing consumers with objective or expert opinion of marketability or potential commercial success.

The court also established record keeping provisions to allow the FTC to monitor compliance with judge's order.

On July 14,2008 there was a proposed settlement which suspend the judgment once the defendants transfered cash and other assets valued at about $10 million, including residences in Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania. The cash payment includes $6.8 million specifically listed in the order, plus approximately $105,000 in interest on a cash bond.

Defendants in this case were Davison & Associates Inc., now known as Davison Design and Development, Inc., Manufacturer's Support Services, Inc., George M. Davison, President and CEO, Thomas Dowler, Gordon M. Davison and Barbara Miele-Davison. The defendants are based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, but have operated nationwide.

To view the Order of Final Judgment, Order for Permanent Injunction and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law presented by the judge from the bench trial in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania go to the FTC website at The FTC has established a telephone line for consumers who may have been harmed by the defendants' conduct. Consumers may call 216-263-3434 for more information.
You may want to call the number that the FTC set up, 216-263-3434.

Last edited by nomaxim : 09-09-2010 at 11:48 AM.
Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2010, 05:37 AM
davisoninvents davisoninvents is offline
Newbie Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8
Chief Consumer Advocate Response

Mr. David Baker
BBB of Western Pennsylvania
400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220
Pittsburgh, PA 15220

August 9, 2010

Re: Paul McInturf
Your ID#: 8254512

Dear Mr. Baker;

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. McInturf on or about 08/03/2010. As indicated in Mr. McInturf’s statement, he entered into a contract with Davison Design and Development, Inc. for the development of his product idea. Our records indicate that Mr. McInturf executed a Confidentiality agreement and a Pre-Development and Representation agreement on 12/30/2008. Mr. McInturf paid for and received the benefit of the services detailed in these agreements. Apparently satisfied with the service provided by Davison, Mr. McInturf then entered into a New Product Sample Agreement (NPSA) on 03/19/2009. The design services were completed and Mr. McInturf approved the final design and completed a questionnaire on 08/10/2009, in which he provided positive feedback. Copies of his approval and questionnaire are enclosed. Please note that the final design which he approved has been obscured for confidentiality reasons. Mr. McInturf’s product sample was presented to two corporations, who unfortunately declined to license the product. Mr. McInturf has declined to continue to pursue any further presentations.

In his statement, Mr. McInturf alleges he was “sold an idea that was not to my liking”. During the design process, an initial design was submitted to Mr. McInturf and he expressed concerns over some of the elements of the design. The product was redesigned to incorporate his suggestions and submitted to him again for approval which, as noted above, he approved on 08/10/2009. Also, in the NPSA, Mr. McIntruf specifically acknowledged in section 4-O; “Client acknowledges that there have been no representations by Davison that the Idea as conceived and submitted by Client is novel or feasible or that the design to be created by Davison will function in the manner and with the attributes as originally conceived by Client.” This acknowledgment, in addition to his explicit authorization of the final design, belies any contention that Davison did not provide the services for which he contracted, or that the services were not to his liking.

Secondly, Mr. McInturf alleges that he is entitled to a refund because the company “did not deliver a marketable item”. Simply because the initial two corporations declined to license the product does not mean it is not marketable. Further, Mr. McInturf was apprised repeatedly of the difficulty in securing a license. As part of the initial submission of his idea to Davison, and BEFORE any contracts are signed or payments are made, Mr. McInturf indicated on 12/09/2008 that he reviewed the Affirmative Disclosure Statement which Davison provides to all of its clients. Contained within this disclosure statement, inter alia, are the current five year totals of:

1. The number of idea submissions received by Davison Design and Development, Inc.;
2. The number of client products that received licenses; and
3. The number of client who realized a net profit from their product.

Further, as Mr. McInturf is an Ohio resident, an additional disclosure was provided as part of his initial agreement. This additional disclosure states; “The purchase of invention development services is a high risk expenditure. The performance of the services detailed in the contract provides no guarantee or promise of profits, or that your invention or idea will be purchased by a manufacturer. Only a very small percentage of inventions have a chance at receiving profits.” Finally, as part of the NPSA, Mr. McInturf explicitly acknowledged in Section 4-J that:

i) Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood that the Client will receive any financial gain from the development of his Idea; and,

ii) The Client understands there is no way of knowing at this time if the targeted corporation will license, buy or pay royalties or the Idea once it is developed.

Given the detailed level of data provided to Mr. McInturf, his assertion that he was promised a marketable product is not supported. Therefore, his complaint sets forth no arguable basis to warrant a refund.


Davison Design and Development, Inc.

Reply With Quote

Old 04-03-2011, 06:43 AM
SEB SEB is offline
I am new at
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3
Re: Davison

ATTN: Mr. Davison, 1/26/11
I faxed you the letter stating you would take care of the fees this time. It said nothing about the company involved, and you still have yet to contact me. There will be no more correspondence with Wilma , She has lied to me twice and you once. We have been at this for 8 years and nothing has *****ed, three of which were fighting with you to do your job. My funds are tapped. You either want to make this work and we both make money or it was all a scam. I have made every attempt to push this forward. You have extracted over $16,000 You have been well paid. Your call before I take it to another company.

If anyone has a Waterproof Cell Phone Patent that is going nowhere? Let Me Know!
I suspect hundreds of people with the same thing and it is all a scam.
If there is an Attorney that wants all my information, I have over 8 years of confrontation and correspondence. I have received monies from past lawsuits that I was not supposed to be involved in. I am exposing this to websites and newspapers everywhere I can, no more privacy. If there is a Company that wants to take this over, contact me.

Reply With Quote

Old 04-03-2011, 06:49 AM
SEB SEB is offline
I am new at
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3
Re: Davison

ATTN: Mr. Davison, 1/26/11
I faxed you the letter stating you would take care of the fees this time. It said nothing about the company involved, and you still have yet to contact me. There will be no more correspondence with Wilma , She has lied to me twice and you once. We have been at this for 8 years and nothing has *****ed, three of which were fighting with you to do your job. My funds are tapped. You either want to make this work and we both make money or it was all a scam. I have made every attempt to push this forward. You have extracted over $16,000 You have been well paid. Your call before I take it to another company.

If anyone has a Waterproof Cell Phone Patent that is going nowhere? Let Me Know!
I suspect hundreds of people with the same thing and it is all a scam.
If there is an Attorney that wants all my information, I have over 8 years of confrontation and correspondence. I have received monies from past lawsuits that I was not supposed to be involved in. I am exposing this to websites and newspapers everywhere I can, no more privacy. If there is a Company that wants to take this over, contact me.

Keep hiding behind your BS

Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2011, 06:34 AM
davisoninvents davisoninvents is offline
Newbie Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8
Re: Davison

Mr. Brown,

Although you do not specifically point to any breach of contracts or address what miscommunications you believed took place in your complaint, we have investigated your remarks.

Your accusation that Mr. Davison lied to you is false. For the record Mr. Brown, you have never had the opportunity to directly speak to Mr. Davison. Also, you contracted with us approximately 6 years ago, not 8 as you claim. In addition, rather than trying to resolve an issue that concerns you, like receiving services for free, you have chosen to use the internet as a vehicle to defame and slander our company. We ask that you reconsider and call us so we can have a meaningful dialog. But, all of this has been said to you, in writing, when you complained directly to the company.

We are happy to assist you; however, using as a mechanism to spread libelous information is not helpful and has placed you in legal jeopardy. We strongly recommend you read’s legal disclaimers found in their “scams rules” link on their website. We most certainly do not wish to pursue you legally so please remove your comments. As well, is a “link farm” that makes advertising revenue from ad placements. The managers of are not inventors nor do they offer any invention development services. They simply post anonymous and unproven content to drive their website up in the search engines and, in doing so, increase their visitor totals to drive up their rate costs per ad placement. They offer no type of mediation services between consumers and business – this would cost them money and they don’t want to impinge upon their profit margins by exerting effort trying to help consumers and businesses communicate honestly. Therefore, complaining to is not helpful.

For the record, you contracted and paid for our product design and development group to build, test and package a product sample. We also offered licensing services to present your idea to manufacturers but by no means did we guarantee you a license or that you would make invention profits. Our company does NOT guarantee licensees or profits and our contracts said that. Therefore, your statement that we must “make this work and we both make money or it is was all a scam” is maliciously incorrect and legally actionable. You are implying that we must make you money or the entire process of building and packaging your invention was a scam. Please consider all of the time and effort our staff committed to helping you over a 6 year period.

As well, the context of your statement “you have extracted over $16,000” is completely false and defamatory. You have implied we somehow took money from you when you elected to enter into and pay for contract services. We are really trying to be understanding here, but your statements are simply over the top. This statement of yours is legally actionable. Simply put, we do not “extract” money from you. You chose to hire us under written contractual terms to build a product sample and package it, which we completed.

Somewhere along the line, you must have forgotten that you invented the product. If you opted to not pursue it on your own that is your decision but we DID NOT offer any type of inventor guarantees of profit. We build prototypes and packaging. No one here has ever told you not to work on getting your invention out onto the market yourself. What we did successfully complete, on the invention you retained us to work on, was building the product sample and packaging - that’s what you hired us to do.

On another issue—please be advised that gripe-sites like and others offer no corporate advocacy or mediation programs to help companies and consumers resolve customer care issues. Most sites are registered in a foreign country and they don’t even verify if the complaint is legitimate or from an actual consumer or user of a service. Competitors can post false and defamatory information. They don’t disclose who actually owns and manages their sites and their primary concern is getting advertising revenues from those who pay to run ads on their site. So, you should probably do some research on “gripe-sites” and what they are all about before you further place yourself in legal jeopardy. Here’s a link for you to learn a little about these gripe-sites and what gets posted on them:

For over 20 years, we have helped people prepare and present their ideas to corporations and manufacturers to see if they would be willing to license the product ideas. Our exclusive idea to product method is responsible for more products on the store shelves than any other competitor in this industry. Quick facts about our company and our process
We are based in Pittsburgh, PA and work with clients from around the world.
  • We have been in business since 1989.
  • Our company’s products have been sold by over 700 stores & online retailers.
  • Our staff designs products for both individuals and corporate clients.
  • We have over 250 staff members.
  • Our staff has won numerous design awards for innovative product designs.
  • We are a member of the Online Business Bureau.
  • Our services include research, prototype development, and packaging design.

Please understand that companies are taking legal action against bloggers that defame their reputations and staff members. We are simply asking that you remove your comments, get your facts straight and, if you would like, contact us so we can have a meaningful dialog about how or if we can help. Please call or feel free to email us at

Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2011, 11:00 AM
Selfesteem Selfesteem is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
Re: Davison

One of the biggest problems with Davison et al is that they know that people have a lack of self esteem when they have an idea. I enquired to Davison a year ago but saw straight through the whole thing, especially willy wonkers chocolate factory workshops! But Davison aside, here's the real issue:

You guys need to get your money back but more than that you need to believe in yourself. Lets deal with the first issue... producing your invention. Firstly, nothing that exists on planet earth is beyond the reasonable ability of engineers to make. If it's plastic moulding, ring them and enquire about those parts. If its metal, enquire to the engineering company in your city. specialist electronics? There are companies who will do this but it involves some work and determination. What we all want to do is allow someone who 'knows' what to do to do it for us but here's a fact....

Licensing a product will never happen unless you have proven uptake from a buying public. ergo YOU need to produce your product and test it on the market. Conduct several disclosure market testers. What will happen through this process is two things.... firstly you will get the REALITY of whether you have a smash hit on your hands. Secondly the process will grow you and show yourself you don't just have ideas, you have the metal to see it through. Once you do this your sense of self determination and self esteem will be improved and you will see that you are capable to fly like those you admire in business. Of course, your product may genuinely be a flop.

If that is the case then think of something else or do something different! Another problem we have in our western society is that we all think a destination i.e. lots of money, will help us. Well it is THE JOURNEY that provides the greatest reward as we reprogram ourselves to be achievers.

Sorry its blunt but if you get what Im saying its a blessing.

Reply With Quote

Old 06-06-2011, 01:48 AM
SEB SEB is offline
I am new at
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3
Re: Davison

Invention Development & Marketing Scams

You may have a great idea for a new product or service, but a great idea is not enough. You need to know how to develop and market it commercially. You could try to sell your idea or invention to a manufacturer who would market it and pay you royalties. But finding such a company could be an overwhelming task. You also could consider using the services of an invention promotion firm.
Some invention promotion firms may help you get your idea or invention into the marketplace. But be aware, some inventors have paid thousands of dollars to firms that promised to evaluate, develop, patent, and market inventions and got nothing for their money.
So be cautious. Your enthusiasm for your idea may make you vulnerable to promoters who make false or exaggerated claims about the market potential of your invention.
This brochure tells you how to spot some common signs of trouble, how to protect yourself, and what to do if you become a victim. It also lists government agencies and private organizations that offer additional information and assistance.
How to Identify Legitimate Firms

Often, it is difficult to distinguish between a fraudulent invention promotion firm and a legitimate one. This may be because unscrupulous and honest firms often use many similar advertising and sales techniques, market evaluations, and contract strategies. However, there are some comparisons made in the next three sections that may help you identify legitimate companies.
Advertising and Sales Techniques

Some invention promotion firms advertise through television and radio, and classified ads in newspapers and magazines. They target independent inventors, frequently offering free information to help them patent and market inventions. They also may advertise a toll-free "800" telephone number that inventors can call for written information. However, the information may consist only of brochures about the promoter.
If you respond to the ads, you may hear from a salesperson who will ask for information about yourself, your idea, and a sketch of the invention. As an inducement, the firm may offer to do a free preliminary review of your invention.
Also, some invention promotion firms may claim to know or have special access to manufacturers who are likely to be interested in licensing your invention. Further, some promotion firms may claim to have been retained by manufacturers who are looking for new product ideas. These kinds of claims often can be false or exaggerated. Therefore, before signing a contract with an invention promotion firm who claims special relationships with appropriate manufacturers, ask for some proof.
A Market Evaluation

After giving your invention a preliminary review, a firm might tell you it needs to do a market evaluation on your idea, which may cost several hundred dollars. Such reports from questionable firms often make vague and general statements and provide no hard evidence that there is a consumer market for your invention. Reputable company reports, on the other hand, deal with specifics. Before you pay for a report on your idea, ask what specific information you will receive.
A Marketing and Licensing Contract

Some invention promotion firms also may offer you a contract where they agree to act as your exclusive marketing and licensing agent. For this, a questionable firm may require you to pay an upfront fee of as much as $10,000 and to commit a percentage of the royalties the invention may earn. On the other hand, reputable licensing agents typically do not rely principally on large upfront fees. They normally rely on royalties from the successful licensing of client inventions and are very selective about which ideas and inventions they pursue. A request for an upfront fee frequently is another distinguishing characteristic of a questionable invention promotion company.
How to Protect Yourself

If you are interested in working with an invention promotion firm, consider taking the following precautions before you sign a contract and pay significant amounts of money.
Early in your discussions with a promotion firm, ask what the total cost of its services will be. Consider it a warning if the salesperson hesitates to answer.
Be careful of an invention promotion firm that offers to review or evaluate your invention but refuses to disclose details concerning its criteria, system of review, and qualifications of company evaluators. Without this information, you cannot assess the competence of the firm or make meaningful comparisons with other firms. Reputable firms should provide you with an objective evaluation of the merit, technical feasibility, and commercial viability of your invention.
Require the firm to check on existing invention patents. Because unscrupulous firms are willing to promote virtually any idea or invention with no regard to its patentability, they may unwittingly promote an idea for which someone already has a valid, unexpired patent. This could mean that even if the promotional efforts on your invention are successful, you may find yourself the subject of a patent infringement lawsuit.
If no valid, unexpired patent exists for your idea, seek advice from a patent professional before authorizing the public disclosure of your idea.
Be wary of an invention promotion firm that will not disclose its success and rejection rates. Success rates show the number of clients who made more money from their invention than they paid to the firm. Rejection rates reflect the percentage of all ideas or inventions that were found unacceptable by the invention promotion company. Check with your state and local consumer protection officials to learn if invention promotion firms are required to disclose their success and rejection rates in your locality.
In reality, few inventions make it to the marketplace and still fewer become commercial successes. According to experts used in FTC cases, an invention promotion firm that does not reject most of the inventions it reviews may be unduly optimistic, if not dishonest, in its evaluations.
Be wary of a firm that claims to have special access to manufacturers looking for new products, but refuses to document such claims. Legitimate invention promotion firms substantiate their claims, which you can check.
Be skeptical of claims and assurances that your invention will make money. No one can guarantee your invention's success.
Avoid being taken in solely on a firm's promotional brochures and affiliations with impressive-sounding organizations.
Beware of high-pressure sales tactics.
Investigate the company before making any commitments. Call your Better Business Bureau, local consumer protection agency, and Attorney General in your state and the state in which the company is located to learn if they know of any unresolved consumer complaints about the firm.
Make sure your contract contains all agreed upon terms, written and verbal, before you sign. If possible, have the agreement reviewed by an attorney.
If you do not get satisfactory answers to all of your questions with an invention promotion firm, consider whether you want to sign a contract. Once a dishonest company has your money, it is unlikely you will ever get it back.
For More Information

A number of government agencies and private organizations offer publications and assistance to independent inventors. You can call the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office at (703) 557-4636 and the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) at 1-(800)-827-5722 for publications about inventions.
You also may want to call your SBA district office to learn about services available through the Small Business Development Centers program.
Inventor's clubs, associations, and innovation centers also can be valuable sources of information and services. For their locations contact the following organizations:
United Inventors Association of the United States of America (UIA-USA) PO Box 23447, Rochester, NY 14692, Phone: (716) 359-9310, Email: (stamped, self-addressed envelope required)
National Congress of Inventor Organizations (NCIO)
P.O. Box 93669, Los Angeles, CA 90093-6690, phone (213) 878-6925.

Minnesota Inventors Congress P.O. Box 71 Redwood Falls, Minnesota 56283-0071 (507) 637-2344
What to Do If You Are a Victim

If you believe you are a victim of a fraudulent invention promotion, first contact the firm and try to get your money back.
If you are unsuccessful, report your problem to your Better Business Bureau, local consumer protection agency, and the Attorney General in your state and in the state where the company is located. Your information may help an ongoing investigation or demonstrate the need for one.
You also may file a complaint with the FTC by writing: Correspondence Branch, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC generally does not intervene in individual disputes. However, the information you provide may indicate a pattern of possible law violations.
More on SCAMS from the Inventors Awareness Center of the UIA/USA at and also:
FTC website with information for inventors about fraudulent companies
An online complaint form for inventors to file complaints against unscrupulous invention promotion companies from US PTO
Federal Trade Commission Cases involving Invention Submission/Promotion Companies
FTC Project MousetrapFTC-9807-2FTC-9807FTC-9709
March 17, 2006 HOT News! $26 mil against Davison & Assoc.
Partial List of suspected companies

Reply With Quote

Old 06-06-2011, 06:49 AM
Scam_Advocates Scam_Advocates is offline
Bronze Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 79
Re: Davison

Originally Posted by nomaxim View Post
It usually pays off to check with the BBB first.

BBB Report,You may want to call the number that the FTC set up, 216-263-3434.
Although BBB can be a useful resource sometimes, I'd try to avoid them. They extort companies, threatening lower ratings unless the company pays them money.
Have you been scammed? Report a scam and we'll help get your money back and exact revenge!
Articles Users Have Submitted: Quibids, Robert Allen, Ashley Madison, Nopalea, Melaleuca

Reply With Quote

Old 06-06-2011, 06:51 AM
backback0491 backback0491 is offline
Newbie Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 17
Re: Davison

Have you tried getting an attorney to file a civil suit against the company?
Victim of a scam? Fight back here.

Reply With Quote


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers. does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other information shall also be at the User’s own risk. Neither nor its affiliates, nor any of their respective agents, employees, information providers or content providers, shall be liable to any User or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, alteration of or use of any content herein, or for its timeliness or completeness, nor shall they be liable for any failure of performance, computer virus or communication line failure, regardless of cause, or for any damages resulting therefrom. Just because a business, person, or entity is listed on does not necessarily constitute they are scammers. This is a free open forum where people can debate the merits from the consumer's or business owner's perspective. Registration and participation is always FREE.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:13 PM. Is Proudly Hosted By Rackco and Protected By CloudFlare

Scams Message Board - Copyright 2004-2013 , All Rights Reserved.