Able App

A summary of what happened?

Investigation into Able App: Concerns and Complaints

Able App is a weight management platform designed to provide users with personalized meal plans, workout routines, and health coaching. While the app markets itself as an innovative solution for achieving wellness goals, numerous complaints and concerns have surfaced, tarnishing its reputation.

Key Concerns and Complaints

1. Unauthorized Charges and Billing Issues
   Many users have reported unexpected charges, often higher than the agreed amount during trial periods. Some claim they were charged full subscription fees immediately after signing up for a low-cost trial, without clear authorization or notification.
2. Lack of Customer Support
   The app’s customer service has been criticized for being unresponsive. Users have expressed frustration with automated chatbot responses, which fail to resolve billing disputes or address user inquiries effectively.
3. Strict No-Refund Policy
   Customers have reported difficulties obtaining refunds, even in cases where charges were unauthorized or when they were dissatisfied with the app’s services. This policy has led to significant user dissatisfaction.
4. Misleading Trial Offers
   There are allegations that the app’s promotional trial offers are deceptive. Users often believe they are signing up for a low-cost trial, only to find themselves locked into expensive subscriptions without proper consent.
5. Questionable Personalization
   Some users have raised concerns about the quality and customization of the meal plans and workout routines provided. Reports suggest that the services may not be as personalized or effective as advertised.

Able App has faced significant backlash due to unauthorized billing practices, unresponsive customer service, and dissatisfaction with the services provided. These issues have led to numerous complaints from users who feel misled by the app’s marketing and policies. Potential customers are advised to exercise caution and thoroughly review terms and conditions before engaging with the app.

Analyzing the Fake Copyright Notice(s)

Our team collects and analyses fraudulent copyright takedown requests, legal complaints, and other efforts to remove critical information from the internet. Through our investigative reporting, we examine the prevalence and operation of an organized censorship industry, predominantly funded by criminal entities, oligarchs, and disreputable businesses or individuals. Our findings allow internet users to gain insight into these censorship schemes’ sources, methods, and underlying objectives.

What was Able App trying to hide?

Able App‘s attempts to hide unfavourable content through the misuse of copyright notices while allegedly engaging in perjury present serious legal concerns. These actions suggest a calculated attempt to manipulate legal systems to suppress free speech, a fundamental violation of copyright law principles and an abuse of legal processes. The use of such tactics not only undermines the integrity of copyright protection but also potentially constitutes perjury, further entangling Able App in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information Able App may be trying to remove from the internet –

Investigative Report: Unpacking the Controversy Surrounding Able App

Able App, a personalized weight management platform, promises tailored meal plans, workout routines, and access to health coaches for users aiming to achieve their fitness and wellness goals. However, despite its claims of innovation, the app has been marred by controversy, with a growing list of complaints and allegations that question its practices and credibility. This in-depth report examines all major grievances, negative feedback, and potential misconduct associated with Able App.

Company Overview

Able App positions itself as a modern solution to weight loss and wellness, leveraging technology to create a “personalized” experience for its users. With an emphasis on user-friendly design and professional health coaching, it has gained traction in the fitness market. However, beneath its polished exterior, the app has faced criticism for deceptive marketing practices, inadequate support, and questionable ethics.

Key Allegations and Complaints

1. Unauthorized Billing and Deceptive Payment Practices

One of the most common complaints about Able App involves unauthorized or unexpected charges. Users report being billed for full subscriptions despite signing up for what they believed to be low-cost trial offers. Many claim they were unaware of the terms and conditions, which often lead to automatic renewals at higher rates.

Common Issues Reported:

• Hidden Terms: Trial periods often transition into expensive subscriptions without sufficient notification or explicit user consent.
• Sudden Charges: Users have alleged being charged immediately upon signing up for trials, sometimes within days, rather than after the advertised trial period.
• Difficulty Canceling: The cancellation process is reportedly cumbersome, with some users finding it nearly impossible to halt charges once they begin.

2. Lack of Responsive Customer Support

Another major source of frustration is the app’s customer service. Many users have highlighted the lack of direct access to real representatives, with the app relying heavily on automated chatbots. This has made it difficult for users to address billing disputes, resolve technical issues, or seek refunds.

Impacts on Users:

• Unresolved Disputes: Billing errors often remain unresolved due to the unavailability of responsive customer service.
• Frustration and Confusion: The reliance on automated systems leaves many users feeling ignored and powerless.

3. No-Refund Policy

Able App’s strict no-refund policy has drawn considerable ire. Even in cases where users claim to have been charged in error or were dissatisfied with the service, the app allegedly refuses to issue refunds. This has led to accusations of unethical business practices.

Examples of Complaints:

• Users have been charged hundreds of dollars without receiving refunds, even after demonstrating that they canceled during the trial period.
• Refund requests related to dissatisfaction with the app’s functionality or promised services are routinely denied.

4. Misleading Marketing Tactics

The app has faced accusations of using misleading advertising to attract new users. Its promotional materials often emphasize low-cost trials without clearly outlining the terms that lead to expensive subscriptions.

Examples of Deceptive Practices:

• Trial Offers: Users are enticed by trials costing as little as $1, only to be billed significantly higher amounts once the trial period ends.
• Overstated Benefits: Marketing materials suggest fully personalized plans and robust coaching services, but many users report generic meal plans and limited coach interaction.

5. Questionable Personalization and Service Quality

One of the app’s primary selling points is its claim to offer personalized plans tailored to individual users. However, many customers have criticized the actual quality of these services, suggesting that the plans and advice provided are generic and not reflective of user input.

Reported Issues:

• Generic Plans: Users have alleged that the “customized” plans are not tailored to their unique needs, undermining the app’s core promise.
• Limited Coaching Support: Despite advertising access to health coaches, some users report minimal interaction or guidance from professionals.

6. Attempts to Suppress Negative Feedback

There are claims that Able App actively seeks to suppress negative reviews and feedback. Some users and reviewers allege that the company uses aggressive tactics, such as threats of legal action or mass reporting of critical content, to remove unfavorable reviews.

Consequences:

• Trust Erosion: Efforts to silence criticism have only fueled skepticism about the company’s transparency and ethics.
• Consumer Awareness: Attempts to stifle negative reviews have inadvertently drawn more attention to user dissatisfaction.

Insights from User Experiences

Real-life accounts from users paint a picture of frustration and disappointment. Many describe feeling deceived by the app’s marketing tactics and trapped by its billing policies. The lack of support and refusal to issue refunds exacerbate these frustrations, leaving users feeling powerless and misled.

Notable Testimonies:

• A user who signed up for a $1 trial was billed over $100 the following week without consent.
• Another individual reported that their subscription continued to renew despite multiple attempts to cancel, leading to months of unauthorized charges.

Potential Legal and Regulatory Issues

While there is no public record of lawsuits or regulatory actions against Able App, the complaints suggest potential violations of consumer protection laws, particularly concerning transparency in billing practices and deceptive advertising. Should these issues persist, the company may face legal scrutiny or regulatory penalties.

Conclusion

Able App’s ambitious promise to revolutionize weight management has been overshadowed by numerous complaints and allegations. From unauthorized billing and inadequate customer support to misleading advertising and questionable service quality, the app has faced widespread criticism that undermines its credibility.

Key Takeaways for Consumers:

• Carefully review terms and conditions before signing up for any trial or subscription.
• Be vigilant about billing practices and monitor your account for unauthorized charges.
• Consider alternative platforms with better reviews and more transparent policies.

Able App serves as a cautionary tale for consumers navigating the crowded and often misleading wellness app market. While it may offer value to some users, its practices raise serious concerns about ethics and accountability.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

Once we ascertain the involvement of Able App (or actors working on behalf of Able App), we will inform Able App of our findings via Electronic Mail.

Our preliminary assessment suggests that Able App may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from Able App, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to Able App to provide details regarding their communications with the agency or expert, as well as the identification of the individual(s) responsible for executing these false DMCA notices.

Failure to respond in a timely manner will necessitate a reassessment of our initial assumptions. In such an event, we will be compelled to take appropriate legal action to rectify the unlawful conduct and take the following steps –

Since Able App made such efforts to hide something online, it seems fit to ensure that this article and sensitive information targeted online by these events get a lot more exposure and traffic than what it would have received originally

We hope this becomes an excellent case study for the Streisand effect…The key idea behind the Streisand effect is that efforts to restrict information can backfire, often causing the information to gain more attention than it would have otherwise. This effect is widespread in the digital age, where users quickly notice and spread censorship efforts on social media and other platforms. Trying to suppress something can unintentionally lead to it becoming more visible, which Able App is finding out the hard way.

Potential Consequences for Able App

Under Florida Statute 831.01, the crime of Forgery is committed when a person falsifies, alters, counterfeits, or forges a document that carries “legal efficacy” with the intent to injure or defraud another person or entity.

Forging a document is considered a white-collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document to deceive another person. It can also include passing along copies of documents that are known to be false. In many states in the US, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony.

Additionally, under most laws, “fraud on the court” is where “a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.”  Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)).

Is Able App Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. Able App used multiple approaches to remove unwanted material from review sites and Google’s search results. Thanks to protections allowing freedom of speech in the United States, there are very few legal ways to do this. Able App could not eliminate negative reviews or search results that linked to them without a valid claim of defamation, copyright infringement, or some other clear breach of the law.

Faced with these limitations, some companies like Able App have gone to extreme lengths to fraudulently claim copyright ownership over a negative review in the hopes of taking it down.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. Able App is certainly keeping interesting company here….

The DMCA takedown process requires that copyright owners submit a takedown notice to an ISP identifying the allegedly infringing content and declaring, under penalty of perjury, that they have a good faith belief that the content is infringing. The ISP must then promptly remove or disable access to the content. The alleged infringer can then submit a counter-notice, and if the copyright owner does not take legal action within 10 to 14 days, the ISP can restore the content.

Since these platforms are predominantly based in the U.S., the complaints are typically made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which requires online service providers and platforms to react immediately to reports or violations. Big Tech companies rarely have systems in place to assess the merit of each report. Instead, all bad actors need to do is clone a story, backdate it, and then demand the real thing be taken down.

Reputation Agency's Modus Operandi

The fake DMCA notices we found always use the “back-dated article” technique. With this technique, the wrongful notice sender (or copier) creates a copy of a “true original” article and back-dates it, creating a “fake original” article (a copy of the true original) that, at first glance, appears to have been published before the true original.

Then, based on the claim that this backdated article is the “original,” the scammers send a DMCA to the relevant online service providers (e.g. Google), alleging that the ‘true’ original is the copied or “infringing” article and that the copied article is the “original,” requesting the takedown of the ‘true’ original article. After sending the DMCA request, the person who sent the wrong notice takes down the fake original URL, likely to make sure that the article doesn’t stay online in any way. If the takedown notice is successful, the disappearance from the internet of information is most likely to be legitimate speech.

As an integral part of this scheme, the ‘reputation management’ company hired by Able App creates a website that purports to be a ‘news’ site. This site is designed to look legitimate at a glance, but any degree of scrutiny reveals it as the charade it is.

The company copies the ‘negative’ content and posts it “on the fake ‘news’ site, attributing it to a separate author,” then gives it “a false publication date on the ‘news’ website that predated the original publication.

The reputation company then sent Google a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice claiming the original website infringed copyright. After a cursory examination of the fake news site, Google frequently accepts the notice and delists the content.

In committing numerous offences, Able App either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about Able App, ignorance does not excuse this wrongdoing.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. FSMSmart is certainly keeping interesting company here.

The Reputation Laundering

Rogue Reputation agencies use spurious copyright claims and fake legal notices to remove and obscure articles linking clients to allegations of tax avoidance, corruption, and drug trafficking. Most of these reputation agencies are based offshore, mainly in Russia, India, and Eastern Europe, and they do not worry about complying with US-based laws.

The content in all of the articles for which the fraudulent DMCA notices have been sent relates to allegations of criminal allegations, including corruption, child abuse, sexual harassment, human trafficking and financial fraud against businesses and individuals with ultra-high net worth.

In addition to the misuse of the DMCA takedown process, there is a notable absence of enforcement concerning perjury violations. The statutory requirement related to perjury is designed to deter copyright holders from submitting fraudulent or knowingly false takedown requests, as they may face legal consequences for making false declarations under penalty of perjury. However, to date, there have been no known instances of any individual being prosecuted for perjury in connection with the submission of false DMCA takedown notices.

This lack of enforcement has emboldened copyright holders to exploit the DMCA takedown process to suppress dissent, criticism, or other unfavorable content, without fear of legal repercussions.

Some of the people and businesses who have employed this tactic to remove legitimate content from Google illegally include a Spanish businessman-turned-cocaine-trafficker, Organised crime, an Israeli-Argentine banker accused of laundering money for Hugo Chávez’s regime, a French “responsible” mining company accused of tax evasion, child molesters and sexual predators. Able App is in great company ….

What else is Able App hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Able App] + {Negative Keyword, such as Scam, Fraud, Complaints, Lawsuit, Sanction, etc} on Google. It’s likely if you scroll down to the bottom of this Google search results, you’ll stumble upon this Legal Takedown notice (pictured below)

To make such an investigation possible, we encourage more online service providers to come forward and share copies of content removal requests with industry experts and researchers. If you have any information on Able App that you want to share with experts and journalists, kindly email the author directly at [email protected].

All communications are strictly confidential and safeguarded under a comprehensive Whistleblower Policy, ensuring full protection and anonymity for individuals who provide information.