O'Hara invention promoter, FTC settle case for $10.7 million
Novice inventors who say they paid thousands of dollars to an O'Hara company that dazzled them with talk of marketing their gadgets and delivered little in the end finally stand to recoup part of their money -- though it may be less than expected.
U.S. District Judge Gary L. Lancaster signed an order approving a settlement that ends 11 years of litigation between the Federal Trade Commission and Davison & Associates Inc.
Under the final terms, the invention promoter will pay $10.7 million in cash, real estate and investment assets to the FTC to settle the case.
The FTC claims the company misrepresented its services and rate of success in growing clients' ideas into actual products for sale.
The $10.7 million represents less than half Lancaster's original judgment against Davison. In a March 17, 2006, decision, he ordered Davison to repay $26 million to clients it represented going back to 1989, when CEO George M. Davison founded the company.
John Mendenhall, regional director of the FTC's Cleveland office, which handled the case, said this morning that while the money available "will not cover all the injury from the case, it will be fairly significant." The FTC now will "identify victims" of the company in order to distribute the money, he said.
The FTC's case against Davison had been among its "Project Mousetrap" actions against invention promoters, but unlike most of the cases it wasn't settled out of court. A three-week trial was held in 2005.
Davison noted in a statement this morning that it opted to settle the dispute, rather than continue to pursue an appeal of Lancaster's decision.
The company noted it has added risk disclosure statements to its marketing material to emphasize that "new product design is a high-risk venture." Lancaster earlier specified cautions for Davison to use in documents it sends to potential clients.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.