1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, STATE OF

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY,

STATE OF MISSOURI

STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel. )

Attorney General Andrew Bailey, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

) Cause No.__________

)

MV Realty of Missouri, LLC ) Division No.________

a Missouri limited liability company, )

)

MV Realty PBC, LLC )

a Florida limited liability company, )

)

MV Realty Holdings, LLC )

a Florida limited liability company, )

)

MV Brokerage of Missouri, LLC )

a Missouri limited liability company, )

)

Amanda Zachman, )

)

Antony Mitchell, )

)

Steven Scott, )

)

David Manchester )

)

Defendants. )

PETITION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES,

AND OTHER RELIEF

The State of Missouri, through Attorney General Andrew Bailey, brings

this lawsuit under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”),

§ 407.020, et seq., RSMo., against MV Realty LLC. According to complaints

filed with the Attorney General’s Office, Defendant advertised to individuals

that they would exchange small, one-time grants of money for individuals

using their real estate listing services. Through these incentives and creating

a high pressure environment for consumers, the Defendant locked those

individuals into long-lasting and high-penalty contracts which placed liens on

individuals’ homes. Plaintiff seeks restitution for the individuals who were

harmed and appropriate injunctive relief to release those still bound by

Defendant’s contracts and to stop any continued fraudulent conduct by

Defendants.

PARTIES

1. Andrew Bailey is the Attorney General of the State of Missouri and

brings this action in his official capacity pursuant to Chapter 407, RSMo.

2. Defendant MV Realty of Missouri, LLC is a Missouri limited

liability company registered in the State of Missouri on December 16, 2021.

The registered local agent for MV Realty of Missouri, LLC is CT Corporation

System, with a registered officer at 120 S Central Ave, Clayton, Mo 63105.

3. Defendant MV Realty of Missouri, LLC has done business within

the State of Missouri by marketing, offering, selling, or providing real estate

services.

4. Defendant MV Realty of Missouri, LLC is licensed as a Real Estate

Association by the Missouri Real Estate Commission, license number:

2021050581.

5. MV Realty PBC, LLC is a Florida limited liability company with

its principal place of business in (location), Florida. Upon information and

belief, MV Realty PBC, LLC wholly owns and directs the actions of MV Realty

of Missouri, LLC and MV Brokerage, LLC. MV Realty PBC, LLC also directed

telemarketing on behalf of MV Realty of Missouri, LLC, resulting in the

violations of the Missouri No Call Law as alleged below.

6. MV Realty Holdings, LLC f/k/a MV Realty IP Holding Company,

LLC is a Florida Limited Liability company with its principal place of

business in (location), Florida. Upon information and belief, MV Realty

Holdings, LLC wholly owns and controls and directs the actions of MV Realty

PBC, LLC.

7. Defendant MV Brokerage of Missouri, LLC is a limited liability

company registered in the State of Missouri on October 28, 2022. The

registered local agent for MV Realty of Missouri, LLC is CT Corporation

System, with a registered officer at 120 S Central Ave, Clayton, Mo 63105.

8. Defendant MV Brokerage of Missouri, LLC is licensed as a Real

Estate Association by the Missouri Real Estate Commission, license number:

2021050581.

9. Amanda Zachman is a director and Chief Sales Officer MV Realty

PBC, LLC, and an officer of MV Realty of Missouri, LLC. Upon information

and belief, Zachman had the authority to control MV Realty, and participated

in the acts and practices of MV Realty that are set forth in this complaint.

10. Antony Mitchell is the Chief Executive Officer of MV Realty PBC,

LLC. Upon information and belief, Mitchell had the authority to control MV

Realty and participated in the acts and practices of MV Realty that are set

forth in this complaint.

11. Steven Scott is an officer of MV Realty PBC, LLC, serving as

Senior Vice President. Upon information and belief, Mitchell had the

authority to control MV Realty and participated in the acts and practices of

MV Realty that are set forth in this complaint.

12. David Manchester is the Chief Operating Officer of MV Realty

PBC, LLC. Upon information and belief, Mitchell had the authority to control

MV Realty and participated in the acts and practices of MV Realty that are

set forth in this complaint.

13. All references to the actions of Defendant include actions

individually, in concert with, or by or through their principals, officers,

directors, members, organizers, employees, agents, representatives,

affiliates, assignees, and successors.

JURISDICTION

14. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to

Article V, § 14 of the Missouri Constitution.

15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant MV Realty of

Missouri, LLC because MV Realty of Missouri, LLC is a Missouri company,

holds a license from the Missouri Real Estate Commission, maintains a

registered office in Missouri, and conducts business within the State of

Missouri.

16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant MV

Brokerage of Missouri, LLC because MV Brokerage of Missouri, LLC is a

Missouri company, holds a license from the Missouri Real Estate Commission,

maintains a registered office in Missouri, and conducts business within the

State of Missouri

17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants MV Realty

PBC, LLC and MV Realty Holdings, LLC as the companies conduct business

within the State of Missouri, including but not limited to, owning MV Realty

of Missouri, LLC, and directing its activities.

18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Amanda

Zachman as Zachman engaged in real estate business in the state of Missouri

by: serving as an officer of MV Realty of Missouri, LLC; signing documents on

behalf of MV Realty of Missouri, LLC; executing Homeowner Benefit

Agreements with Missouri consumers; filing liens related to contracts signed

with Missouri consumers.

19. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Antony

Mitchell as Mitchell directed the advertising, marketing, and sale of real estate

services in the state of Missouri by: serving as the Chief Executive Officer of

MV Realty PBC, LLC, which owned MV Realty of Missouri and directed its

activities;

20. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant David

Manchester as Manchester directed the advertising, marketing, and sale of

real estate services in Missouri by: serving as an officer of MV Realty of

Missouri, LCC; as serving as the Chief Operations Officer of MV Realty PBC,

LLC, which owned MV Realty of Missouri, LLC, and directed its activities.

21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Steven Scott

as Steven Scott directed the advertising, marketing, and sale of real estate

services in Missouri by: serving as an officer of MV Realty of Missouri, LLC;

signing documents organizing MV Realty of Missouri, LLC, to the Missouri

Secretary of State’s Office; serving as a director and Senior Vice President of

MV Realty PBC, LLC, which owned MV Realty of Missouri, LLC, and directed

its activities.

22. This Court has authority over this action pursuant to § 407.100,

RSMo., which allows the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief and

restitution in circuit court against persons who violate § 407.020, RSMo.

VENUE

23. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to § 407.100.7, RSMo.,

which provides that “[a]ny action under this section may be brought in the

county in which the defendant resides, in which the violation alleged to have

been committed occurred, or in which the defendant has a principal place of

business.”

24. Venue is proper in Callaway County because Defendants’

registered office is in St. Louis County.

MERCHANDISING PRACTICES ACT

25. Section 407.020 of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act

provides in pertinent part:

“The act, use or employment by any person of any

deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise,

misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment,

suppression, or omission of any material fact in

connection with the sale or advertisement of any

merchandise in trade or commerce or the solicitation

of any funds for any charitable purpose, as defined in

section 407.453, in or from the state of Missouri, is

declared to be an unlawful practice… Any act, use or

employment declared unlawful by this subsection

violates this subsection whether committed before,

during or after the sale, advertisement, or

solicitation.”

26. “Person” is defined as “any natural person or his legal

representative, partnership, firm, for-profit or not-for-profit corporation,

whether domestic or foreign, company, foundation, trust, business entity or

association, and any agent, employee, salesman, partner, officer, director,

member, stockholder, associate, trustee or cestui que trust thereof.”

27. “Merchandise” is defined as “any objects, wares, goods,

commodities, intangibles, real estate, or services.” § 407.010(4).

28. “Sale” is defined as “any sale, lease, offer for sale or lease, or

attempt to sell or lease merchandise for cash or on credit.” § 407.010(6).

29. “Trade” or “commerce” are defined as “the advertising, offering for

sale, sale, or distribution, or any combination thereof, of any services and any

property, tangible or intangible, real, personal, or mixed, and any other

article, commodity, or thing of value wherever situated. The terms ‘trade’ and

‘commerce’ include any trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting the

people of this state.” § 407.010(7).

30. Defendants have sold merchandise in trade or commerce within

the meaning of § 407.010.

31. The Attorney General has promulgated rules explaining and

defining terms used in §§ 407.010 to 407.145 of the Merchandising Practices

Act. Said rules are contained in the Missouri Code of State Regulations

(“CSR”).

32. From those regulations, and pertinent to this petition, a false

promise is defined as “any statement or representation which is false or

misleading as to the maker’s intention or ability to perform a promise, or

likelihood the promise will be performed.” 15 CSR 60-9.060.

33. “A misrepresentation is an assertion that is not in accord with the

facts.” 15 CSR 60-9.070.

34. “Deception is any method, act, use, practice, advertisement or

solicitation that has the tendency or capacity to mislead, deceive or cheat, or

that tends to create a false impression.” 15 CSR 60-9.020.

35. Among other things, it is considered an unfair practice “for any

person in connection with the sale of merchandise to unilaterally breach

unambiguous provisions of consumer contracts.” 15 CSR 60-8.070.

36. An unfair practice includes an act which “[o]ffends any public

policy as it has been established by the Constitution, statutes, or common law

of this state, or by the Federal Trade Commission, or its interpretative

decisions.” 15 CSR 60-8.020.

THE MISSOURI TELEMARKETING PRACTICES LAW

37. Section 407.1076, RSMo, provides in pertinent part:

It is an unlawful telemarketing act or practice for any seller or

telemarketer to engage in the following conduct:

(3) Cause the telephone to ring or engage any consumer in telephone

conversation repeatedly or continuously in a manner a reasonable

consumer would deem to be annoying, abusive or harassing;

(11) Knowingly utilize any method to block or otherwise circumvent

a consumer’s use of a caller identification service.

38. Section 407.1082.1, RSMo, provides in pertinent part:

It is unlawful pursuant to section 407.020 to violate any provision of

sections 407.1070 to 407.1085 or to misrepresent or omit the

required disclosures of section 407.1073 or 407.1076, and pursuant

to sections 407.010 to 407.130, the violator shall be subject to all

penalties, remedies and procedures provided in sections 407.010 to

407.130. The remedies available in this section are cumulative and

in addition to any other remedies available by law.

39. “Telemarketing” is defined as “a plan, program or campaign which

is conducted to induce the purchase or lease of merchandise by use of one or

more telephones and which involves more than one telephone call.” §

407.1070(13), RSMo.

40. A “telemarketer” is defined as “any person, or any recorded,

computer-generated, electronically generated or other voice communication of

any kind, who, in connection with telemarketing, initiates or receives

telephone calls to or from a consumer. A telemarketer includes, but is not

limited to, any such person that is an owner, operator, officer, director or

partner to the management activities of a business.” § 407.1070(12), RSMo.

41. A “seller” is defined as “any person who, in connection with a

telemarketing transaction, provides, offers to provide, or arranges for others to

provide merchandise to the consumer in exchange for consideration.” §

407.1070(11), RSMo.

42. “Merchandise” is defined as “any objects, wares, goods,

commodities, intangibles, real estate or services . . . .” § 407.1070(8), RSMo.

THE MISSOURI DO-NOT-CALL LAW

43. Section 407.1098.1, RSMo, provides

No person or entity shall make or cause to be made any telephone

solicitation to the telephone line of any residential subscriber in

this state who has given notice to the attorney general, in

accordance with rules promulgated pursuant to section 407.1101

of such subscriber’s objection to receiving telephone solicitations.

44. Section 407.1107, RSMo, provides, in pertinent part:

1. The attorney general may initiate proceedings relating to a

knowing or threatened knowing violation of section 407.1098 or

407.1104. Such proceedings may include, without limitation, an

injunction, a civil penalty up to a maximum of five thousand

dollars for each knowing violation and additional relief in any

court of competent jurisdiction. The attorney general may issue

investigative demands, issue subpoenas, administer oaths and

conduct hearings in the course of investigating a violation of

section 407.1098 or 407.1104.

45. A “residential subscriber” is defined as, “a person who, for

primarily personal and familial use, has subscribed to residential telephone

service, wireless service or similar service, or the other persons living or

residing with such person.” § 407.1095(2), RSMo.

46. A “telephone solicitation” is defined as “any voice, facsimile, short

messaging service (SMS), or multimedia messaging service (MMS), for the

purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property,

goods or services . . . ” § 407.1095(3), RSMo.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT TO ALL COUNTS

47. MV Realty of Missouri, LLC, is a Florida-based realtor organized

in Missouri on December 16, 2021.

48. MV Realty of Missouri, LLC, was owned entirely by MV Realty

PBC, LLC, a Florida company. MV Realty PBC, LLC, its directors and officer,

controlled the operations of MV Realty of Missouri, LLC.

49. At all relevant times, Defendants were engaged in the business of

advertising, offering for sale, and selling of real estate services.

TELEMARKETING ABUSES

50. The Defendants called these real estate services the Homeowner

Benefit Program (“HBP”). Defendants conducted telephone and internet

advertising to promote the Homeowner Benefit Program, promising a few

hundred to a few thousand dollars in exchange for consumers entering a

listing agreement under which the Defendants were to sell the consumer’s

home as a real estate agent. These calls are widespread and persistent, and

they have garnered the attention of the Federal Communications

Commission (“FCC”) for violations of the Do Not Call Registry and their

abusive tactics.

51. The FCC investigated MV Realty’s use of PhoneBurner for

telemarketing and robocalling. On January 24, 2023, the FCC ordered all

U.S.-based voice service providers to prevent the transmission on their

networks of suspected illegal robocall traffic from MV Realty using the

PhoneBurner platform.

52. The FCC concluded that MV Realty placed nearly 12 million calls

to phone numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry.

53. Upon information and belief, MV Realty engaged in the same

conduct in Missouri.

54. Defendants made, initiated, or caused to be made or initiated

telephone solicitations and/or telephone sales calls to residential subscribers

on the Missouri Do Not Call List.

55. PhoneBurner produced call detail records to Plaintiff. Based on

these records MV Realty made or initiated approximately 42,452 telephone

solicitations to telephone numbers on the Missouri Do Not Call List.

56. Upon information and belief, MV Realty used caller IDs with

Missouri area codes so that they could match the area codes with the called

party.

57. This practice is called neighborhood spoofing, and it is intended to

trick the call recipient into thinking the call was coming from a fellow

Missourian compared to a company based in Florida.

58. Defendants were not registered to receive the Missouri Do Not Call

List.

UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE ACTS AND PRACTICS RELATED TO

THE SALE OF REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE SERVICES

59. The actual terms of the contract, called the Homeowner Benefit

Agreement (“HBA”), place a 40-year long binding obligation on consumers for

a portion of their house’s sales price. This obligation is a 3–6% commission on

the sale price of the house for the Defendants to list the home. The obligation

could also be triggered by a number of “Early Termination Events” listed in

the contract. These Early Termination Events are drafted in a deceptive way

to allow collection of the commission fee for a variety of property transfers

that are not sales.

60. For instance, though listed as exceptions, non-sale transfers of title

(e.g., transfer to the owner’s heirs upon her death) could also be considered

an Early Termination Event if the transferee does not notify the Defendants

within ten (10) days of her intent to continue the agreement.

61. Thus these Early Termination Events allow MV Realty to collect

“commission fees” even when they are not acting as an agent or broker for the

real estate transaction.

62. Defendants’ practice is to send a notary to the consumer’s

residence within one or two days of the consumer’s assent to signing an HBA.

The notary is supplied with a single copy of the contract. The notary explains

the contract in general terms and has the consumer sign the contract. The

notary does not leave an additional copy of the agreement with the consumer.

Consumers do not receive a completed copy of the contract until a day to

multiple days after it has been signed.

63. Defendants do not provide advance copies of the contract to

consumers, so the first time they see the HBA is when the notary arrives to

have the consumer sign the agreement.

64. Consumers describe these interactions as high pressure

environments, and many complaints also note the lack of notification by the

notary of important terms of the contract. These include the long duration of

the consumer’s obligation and Defendants placing a lien on the property.

65. The pressure in these situations is exacerbated by the Defendants

targeting consumers who are property owners in need of money and unable

to receive other loans.

66. Once signed, the consumer has three (3) days to cancel her contract

before she is bound to the obligation for forty (40) years. The contract does

not identify the date by which the consumer may provide notice of

cancellation under the three-day cancellation term. The contract does not set

the notice of the three-day right to cancellation in bold face font.

67. The amount owed by the consumer is at least ten (10) times the

amount of money received from the Defendants. Missouri consumer

complainants received on average $578.61 and owed an average of $6,673.20

if they were to sell or transfer their homes.

68. After the contract is signed, the Defendants place a memorandum

on the title record for the consumer’s property notifying any potential buyer

or loan provider of the owner’s obligation to MV Realty.

69. This memorandum acts, in effect, as a lien on the property, and it

often interferes with the property owner’s ability to sell or refinance her

home.

70. Defendants also refer to the memorandum on the Frequently

Asked Questions page of their website. Since late 2022 it has read:

71. Despite Defendants’ verbal and digital representations to the

contrary, the contract explicitly grants MV Realty a lien in the consumer’s

property. The contract’s “Notice of Agreement” section paragraph a. states

the “Property Owner hereby conveys unto the Company a lien and security

interest in and to the property to secure the obligations of the property

hereunder.” Paragraph c. refers to the company’s promise to consider in good

faith a homeowner’s request to facilitate refinancing or a new mortgage by

“subordinating the lien of this Agreement to the refinanced new mortgage.”

72. The “Memorandum of MVR Homeowner Benefit Agreement”

signed by homeowners and recorded by the Defendants states that the HBA

“restricts transfers of property and creates a lien and security interest in the

property to secure the obligations of the Property Owner to the Company

thereunder in the amount of the Early Termination fee…”

73. Beginning in 2021, Defendants, through its use of such misleading

representations, convinced at least 380 consumers to enter into HBAs.

74. In addition, Defendants may have entered into such agreements

with other consumers. Additional consumers who were harmed by

Defendants’ actions may become evident during the course of this litigation.

VIOLATIONS

COUNT I – DECEPTION (15 CSR 60-9.020)

75. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully stated

herein.

76. Defendants have violated § 407.020, RSMo., by creating

advertisements that promised quick payments of money without acting as a

loan. These advertisements:

a. fail to mention the length of the contract’s duration to consumers;

b. fail to mention that MV Realty places a lien on consumers’

property to ensure repayment;

c. mislead consumers as to the nature of the memorandum placed on

the title of their property;

d. mislead consumers as to the MV Realty’s role as an agent for home

sales; and

e. mislead consumers as to the nature of the contract by representing

it as a commission when it is in fact a loan.

77. Such representations and promises tended to be misleading as to

consumers’ financial obligations to the Defendant in the HBA.

COUNT II – CONCEALMENT, SUPPRESSION OR OMISSION OF ANY

MATERIAL FACT (15 C.S.R. 60-9.110)

78. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully stated

herein.

79. Defendant engaged in conduct that violated Section 407.020, by

using half-truths in connection with the sale of real estate services in that

Defendant made statements in connection with the advertisement and sale

of its real estate services that failed to disclose material facts known to

him/her, or upon reasonable inquiry would be known to him/her by:

a. advertising to consumers without mentioning the 40-year duration

of the contract and presenting confusing messaging on the topic of

the placement of a lien on consumers’ property;

b. advertising to consumers that they would only be required to pay

if they sold their home, while in fact there were numerous other

transfers of property that were classified as “Early Termination

Events” and that would require payment from consumers despite

not being a sale;

c. changing its website to obscure the fact that Defendant places a

lien on consumers’ homes.

COUNT III – UNFAIR PRACTICES (15 CSR 60-8.020)

80. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully stated

herein.

81. Defendants have violated § 407.020, RSMo., by engaging in

unfair practices, including but not limited to:

a. demanding excessively high payouts from consumers relative to

what the consumers receive;

b. creating an unreasonable restraint on the alienation of

consumers’ homes by placing a 40-year lien on the home that can

prevent individuals from refinancing or selling their home.

82. Defendant’ violation presents the risk of, and causes substantial

injury to consumers because violations of § 407.020 harmed, and will

continue to harm, consumers.

COUNT IV – UNFAIR PRACTICES (15 CSR 60-8.020.1(A)(1))

83. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully stated

herein.

84. Defendants have violated § 407.020, RSMo., by engaging in

unfair practices through business practices that offended public policy,

which include but are not limited to:

a. Violating § 399.100.2(13), RSMo., by using prizes, money, gifts or

other valuable consideration as inducement to secure customers

or clients to purchase, lease, sell or list property when the

awarding of such prizes, money, gifts or other valuable

consideration is conditioned upon the purchase, lease, sale or

listing;

b. Violating 16 CFR §429.1(a) during its home solicitation sales by,

i. Failing to furnish the buyers with a fully completed receipt

or copy of any contract pertaining to such sale at the time

of execution; and

ii. Failing to include in the contract statements regarding the

three-day right to cancellation in a bold face type of a

minimum size of 10 points;

c. Violating § 407.710, RSMo, during its home solicitation sales by,

i. Failing to present to the buyers a written agreement or

offer to purchase which designates as the date of the

transaction the date on which the buyer actually signs and

contains a statement of the buyer’s rights which complies

with subsection 2 of the statute; and

ii. Failing to include in the contract statements regarding the

three-day right to cancellation in 10-point boldface type.

d. Violating § 339.730.1(6), RSMo, by failing to comply with its

fiduciary obligations as a broker by breaking applicable Missouri

and Federal law in the course of its operations and dealings with

consumers.

COUNT V – UNLAWFUL TELEMARKETING ACTS (RSMo. §

407.1076)

85. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully stated

herein.

86. Defendants have violated § 407.1076.3 by repeatedly and

continuously calling consumers advertising their HBP and doing so in a

manner that a reasonable consumer would deem to be annoying, abusive, or

harassing.

87. Defendants have violated § 407.1076.11 by knowingly using

spoofing services to disguise their phone number or otherwise to make their

phone number appear local in order to circumvent a consumer’s use of a

caller identification service.

COUNT V – VIOLATIONS OF THE DO-NOT-CALL LAW

(407.1098.1, RSM0)

88. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully stated

herein.

89. At least 42,452 times, Defendants, acting directly or through

intermediates, have made or caused to be made telephone solicitations to

the telephone lines of residential subscribers in the State of Missouri who

have given notice to the Attorney General of their objections to receiving

telephone soliciations and were placed on Missouri’s Telemarketing No-Call

list.

90. Defendants also did not either obtain an express agreement in

writing from those consumers before contacting them by telephone or have

an established business relationship with those consumers before making

those calls.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the State prays this Court enter judgment:

A. Finding Defendants have violated the provisions of § 407.020,

RSMo.

B. Issuing a permanent injunction under § 407.100.1,3, RSMo.,

enjoining and prohibiting Defendants and their agents, servants, employees,

representatives, and other individuals acting on their behalf from advertising,

offering for sale, or selling their Homeowner Benefit Program in Missouri.

C. Declaring those contracts signed because of Defendants’

misrepresentations and unfair practices to be void.

D. Ordering that all memoranda and liens on all relevant consumers’

property be removed and declared void by either the Defendants or the clerks

in the counties where the memoranda and liens were filed.

E. Order that Defendants repay all fees collected from enforcing

Homeowner Benefit Agreements.

F. Requiring the Defendants to provide full restitution to all

consumers who suffered an ascertainable loss per § 407.100.4, RSMo.

G. Requiring Defendants to pay the State an amount of money equal

to 10% of the total restitution ordered against Defendants, or such other

amount as the court deems fair and equitable, pursuant to § 407.140.3, RSMo.

H. Requiring Defendants to pay all court, investigative, and

prosecution costs of this case pursuant to § 407.130, RSMo.

I. Requiring Defendants to pay to the State a civil penalty in such

amounts as allowed by law per violation of Chapter 407 that the court finds to

have occurred pursuant to § 407.100.6, RSMo.

J. Requiring Defendants to pay prejudgment interest on all

restitution amounts awarded by this court.

K. Requiring Defendants to pay a $5,000 penalty for each violation of

the Do-Not-Call-Law, which is believed to be at least 42,452 violations, for a

total of at least of $212,260,000.

L. Granting any additional relief that this Court deems just and

proper.

Respectfully submitted,

ANDREW BAILEY

Attorney General

/s/ John W. Grantham

John W. Grantham, #60556

/s/ Nathaniel Brancato

Nathaniel Brancato, #75489

nate.bra[email protected]ov

/s/ Michelle L. Hinkl

Michelle L. Hinkl #64494

michelle.hinkl@ago.mo.gov

Assistant Attorneys General

P.O. Box 899

Jefferson City, MO 65102

PH: (573) 751-3942

john.Grantham@ago.mo.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff