STATE OF MINNESOTA. DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Other Civil (Consumer Protection) State of Minnesota, by its Court File No. Attorney General, Lori Swanson, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT vs. Alpine Fence Company, LLC, and Chad ‘Thompson, individually, Defendants. The State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Lori Swanson (“State”), for its Complaint against Alpine Fence Company, LLC, and Chad Thompson, individually, states and alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Chad Thompson (“Thompson”), through his company Alpine Fence Company, ELC (“Alpine”), markets and sells fences and fence installation services to customers throughout Minnesota. Thompson typically demands a 50 percent prepayment from his customers that ean range from $1,500 to almost $6,000 at the time they contract with Alpine. Some customers who prepaid Alpine thousands of dollars never received their new fence or a refund of their prepayment. Alpine and Thompson further fold some Minnesota customers that Alpine was a Better Business Bureau Accredited Business when in fact the Better Business Bureau had revoked its accreditation. Such business practices are deceptive, fraudulent, and unlawful. As aresult, the State brings this action to remedy Alpine’s and Thompson's fraud and enforce Minnesota’s consumer protection laws. PARTIES 2. Lori Swanson, Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, is authorized under Minnesota Statues chapter 8; the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes sections 325D.43—48; the Consumer Fraud Act, Minnesota Statutes sections 325F.68-.694; and has common law authority, including parens patriae authority, to bring this action on behalf of the State of Minnesota and its citizens to enforce Minnesota's laws. 3. Alpine Fenee Company, LLC is a Minnesota limited liability company organized with the Minnesota Secretary of State under Minnesota Statutes chapter 322B. Alpine's registered office address with the Minnesota Secretary of State is 15 South 1% Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota $5401. Alpine’s status with the Minnesota Secretary of State is listed as inactive because it was terminated administratively on April 21, 2014. 4, Chad Thompson resides at 15 South 1* Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 and is Alpine’s registered agent. ‘Thompson owns and personally directs and controls Alpine's operations, including marketing, contracting for, and accepting payment for fencing and related services Alpine offers to Minnesota businesses and individuals JURISDICTION 5, This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to Minnesota Statutes sections 8.01, 8.31, 8.32, F.70, and common law, SD.45, 32 6 This Court has personal jurisdiction over Alpine because it is a Minnesota company, has operations in Minnesota, has transacted business in Minnesota, and has committed acts in Minnesota causing injury to the Minnesota public and in violation of Minnesota law.7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Thompson because he resides in Minnesota and has committed acts in Minnesota causing injury to the Minnesota public and in violation of Minnesota law. VENUE 8, Venue in Hennepin County 's ptoper under Minnesota Statutes section $42.09 because Alpine is located in Hennepin County and the cause of action arose, in part, in Hennepin County. Thompson also resides in Hennepin County. FACTUAL BACKGROUND I. ALPINE OFFERS AND SELLS GoD AND SERVICES RELATED TO FENCES TO MINNESOTS Consumers. 9. Alpine offers, markets, sells, and installs merchandise related to fences to Minnesota businesses and individuals. Alpine markets and sells some customers the goods needed to construct a new fence, such as wood, vinyl, or chain-link fencing materials. Alpine also markets and sells some customers installation-related services to construct the customer's new fence 10. Alpine markets these goods and services in Minnesota in several manners. For example, some Minnesota consumers learned about Alpine online through mobile and desktop versions of its website, Alpine continues to have an active desktop version of its website through which customers may contact Alpine for fencing goods and installation-related services. Others learned about Alpine by seeing signs Alpine adhered to past customers’ fences denoting that these fences were installed by Alpine. 11, Alpine's and Thompson’s dealings with Minnesota consumers, discussed in additional detail below, have generally followed the same pattem: a potential customer contactsAlpine either by email or telephone to request a quote for a fencing project. Thompson or another Alpine representative then goes to the potential customer's home or business, measures the customer's yard, and provides a quote for the fencing project. During this process, Alpine and its customers typically discuss a timeline for the project and agree to an installation window,” generally between a few weeks to a few months in the future. Once an agreement is ng the reached, a contract is signed, typically at the customer’s home or business, memorialit ‘goods and services that will be provided. These contracts specify the type, quality, and length of fence to be installed, list the cost of materials, and specify the cost of installation to arrive at a total contract price. 12. Alpine generally requires customers to make up to a 50 percent prepayment of the total contract price at the time they enter into the contract. The amounts of these prepayments have ranged from around $1,500 to almost $6,000. 13. Alpine is a closely-held company with Thompson as its sole owner. Thompson is “Thompson has personally personally involved in and directs and controls Alpine's operations. performed the following tasks, among others, for Alpine: soliciting potential Alpine customers; negotiating contracts between Alpine and Minnesota consumers; signing contracts on Alpine's behalf soliciting payment fiom Alpine customers and directing to whom they should make payment; overseeing the scheduling and installation of customers’ fencing; and receiving and responding to customer inquiries and complaints. TL ALPINE Has FALSELY MARKETED ITSELF TO MINNESOTA CONSUMERS AS 4 BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU ACCREDITED BUSINESS, AND THOMPSON HAS ALSO PERSONALLY Abe SUCH MISREPRESENTATIONS TO CONSUMERS. 14, ‘The Better Business Bureau of Minnesota and North Dakota (“BBB”) is a nonprofit organization that sets standards for business behavior in the marketplace, provides 4reviews of business entities within Minnesota and North Dakota to assist consumers when selecting businesses to patronize, and mediates on behalf of consumers to resolve their disputes with businesses, The BBB invites certain businesses that meet its standards to join the BBB as a “BBB Accredited Business.” Individuals sometimes rely on the BBB’s accreditation ratings as part of their decision-making process when determining whether to patronize a business, 15. On May 21, 2015, the BBB revoked Alpine’s accreditation, The BBB revoked Alpine’s accreditation because the company had failed to make good faith efforts to resolve complaints made to the BBB regarding Alpine and failed to participate in a customer-requested hearing through the BBB, The BBB sent Alpine a letter that same day, which was addressed to Thompson, informing him that Alpine’s BBB accreditation had been revoked. This letter was not returned to the BBB. 16. Despite this revocation, Alpine and Thompson continued to falsely represent to Minnesota consumers that Alpine was a BBB Accredited Business after May 21, 2015. Alpine's website continued to prominently feature the BBB logo indicating that Alpine was a BBB Accredited Business until at least March, 2016. 17. Alpine's contract with customers included the BBB logo on the first page and stated that Alpine was a “Better Business Bureau Member.” Thompson personally used these contracts with customers after the BBB revoked Alpine’s accreditation, 18. Alpine’s business cards similarly stated that Alpine was a “Minnesota Better Business Bureau Member.” Thompson distributed these business cards to customers after Alpine’s BBB accreditation was revoked19. Alpine also stated in an advertisement it placed on Craigslist in April, 2016, that it was a “Better Business Bureau-Member: Preferred Contractors Network.” Its BBB accreditation had been revoked for almost a year by this time. 20. As recently as December 13, 2016, Alpine’s Facebook page still stated that Alpine was * n A+ member of the Minnesota Better Business Bureau[.]" This representation is not true 21. Some Minnesota consumers hired Alpine after its accreditation had been revoked, in part because Alpine falsely stated that it was a BBB Accredited Business. For example, M.L: reported that she researched different fence companies online in or around March, 2016 and selected Alpine partly based on its website’s claim that it was accredited by the BBB. A.S likewise reviewed Alpine's website prior to contracting with it in August, 2015, and selected Alpine, in part, because of its representations that it was BBB accredited 22. Thompson also personally represented to customers during his sales pitches at their homes and offices that Alpine was a BBB Accredited Business. Thompson told D.C., AS., and MLL. when he came to their homes that Alpine was a BBB Accredited Business. At the time Thompson made these representations, Alpine’s BBB accreditation had already been revoked. 23. Alpine marketed itself as a “recipient” of the “Best of Minneapolis” award as well. Alpine stated on its website, that it was “Recipient: “Best of Minneapolis’ 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013.” Alpine claimed in an advertisement on Craigslist in July, 2016, that it was “Recipient: ‘Best of Minneapolis’ 2008-2015." Alpine's business cards further stated “USCA Award ‘Best of Minneapolis’ Recipient: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 & 2012." Thompson also personally represented to at least one prospective customer during his sales pitch that Alpine had won the “Best of Minneapolis” award.IIL ALPINE AND THOMPSON FAILED TO PROVIDE AGREED-UPON FENCING AND RELATED. INSTALLATION SERVICES BUT NEVERTHELESS KEPT THE PREPAYMENTS THEY SOLICITED FROM CONSUMERS. 24, Despite taking their prepayments and representing that Alpine would provide and install new fencing in retum, Alpine and Thompson failed to actually install fences for some customers. Alpine's and Thompson's representations that it would provide fencing in return for such customers’ payments were deceptive and fraudulent, 25. The first red flag for some customers who never received their new fence was difficulty reaching Thompson with follow-up questions about their projects. Thompson has not promptly returned phone, text messages, or emails from multiple customers inquiring about their fence projects. Alpine then failed to show up during the agreed-upon installation “window” at these customers’ homes or businesses to begin installing their fences. When some customers attempted to contact Thompson to inquire about why Alpine had not performed as promised, he did not respond to their phone calls, text messages, or emails. If one of these customers managed to successfully reach Thompson, he generally told them that their project was delayed due to weather conditions, because supplies were not yet available, or duc to a scheduling conflict. 27. — After Alpine’s no-shows, customers have sought to cancel their contracts and request a refund of their prepayments. In response, Thompson has pointed to language in ‘Alpine's contract that he claims entitles Alpine to keep $0% of their prepayment and has told customers that they are only entitled to a partial refund as a result. When customers have objected to Thompson keeping a portion of their prepayment because Alpine never performed any actual work, Thompson has become unresponsive and stopped retuming their phone calls, text messages, and emails.28. Ilustrative examples of Minnesota residents who have been subjected to Alpine's and Thompson’s deceptive business practices include, but are not limited to, the following: T.L. 29, T.L., a manager at a local Minnesota non-profit corporation whose mission is to assist victims of domestic violence, hired Alpine to install a fence at the nonprofit’s place of business. ‘T.L negotiated the agreement for the fence with Thompson personally. ‘The nonprofit sent Thompson a check for $5,387, or half of the $10,774 total price, on July 17, 2014, as a prepayment for the project. Thompson then emailed T-L. indicating that Alpine would install the fence within four to six weeks. 30. When TLL. did not hear from Thompson after four weeks, she called several times for an update, Thompson never returned her phone calls. She finally reached Thompson about « week later on August 25, 2014, and he indicated that Alpine needed an additional two weeks to install the fence, When two weeks passed with no contact from Thompson, T.L. again began calling. She reached Thompson on September 8, 2014, and he said that it would be another week until installation. Another week passed and nothing happened, T.L, left Thompson several voice messages throughout the remainder of September, 2014, but he never responded to her calls. 31, The nonprofit’s attorney sent a letter to Thompson in early October 2014, requesting a refund of the organization's prepayment and to cancel its contract with Alpine. When Thompson did not respond to the letter, T-L.’s nonprofit filed a complaint with the BBB on October 22, 2014. Alpine never responded to the BB's inquiries regarding the nonprofit’s complaint. Alpine never installed the fence or refuuncled the nonprofit its money, Because T.L.s nonprofit used funds from a charitable grant specifically given to the organization to build afence, it had to de 4c other funds—mainly donations it had collected throughout the year—to offset the loss. AS. 32, AS. aresident of St. Paul, negotiated with Thompson and contracted with Alpine to have Alpine remove her old fence and install a new one in her backyard in the fall of 2015. cost of the She arranged with Thompson to give her a five percent discount if she paid the e project up front, and prepaid Thompson a total of $4,314.90. A.S. and Thompson agreed that ‘Alpine would begin installing her fence in September, 2015, and that the fence would be completed no later than the first week in October. Thompson also agreed to pull the necessary permits for her project. 33. _A.S. was contacted by Alpine on September 11, 2015, and he told her that he was going to remove her old fence the next day. Someone from Alpine came to A.S.’s home the next day and removed part of her old fence. The Alpine representative did not return to complete the removal of A.S.’s fence, but sent her a text message on October 6, 2015, indicating that he could not finish the removal until she got a permit for the project from the eity of St, Paul 34. A.S, emailed Thompson the next day and he indicated it would be better for AS. to pull the permit herself, despite their prior agreement, as it would cost her an additional $250 for Alpine to pull the permit, Concerned about the delays in her project and by Alpine’s failure to seoure her permit, A.S, emailed Thompson on October 13 to request a refund. Thompson responded that same day indicating that he intended to enforce the terms of the agreement. AS. reluctantly secured a permit for her project herself on October 16, ‘Thompson and A.S. exchanged emails throughout the remainder of October and into carly November 2015, about the status of her project. When her fence had not been installed by mid-November, A.S. contacted 9‘Thompson on November 17 and again requested a full refund. Thompson never responded. ASS.’s fence was never installed and she never received a refund of the $4,314.90 she paid Alpine. ET. 35. FVT., a retiree living in Minneapolis, contracted with Alpine for it to remove his old fence and install a new one in March 2016, for a total price of $2,260. F.T. prepaid Thompson $1,130, or half of the price, upfront as a deposit. At Thompson’s direction, F.T. wrote the check for $1,130 to Thompson personally. FT. explained to Thompson that he needed his fence to be installed quickly because he wanted his grandchildren to be safe while they played in his backyard. Thompson assured him that would not be a problem. F.T. and ‘Thompson agreed that F.T’s fence would be installed the week of May 16, 2016. 36. With the assistance of Alpine, F.T. had his old fence removed in time for the new one to be installed the week of May 16, Alpine then informed F.., however, that its supplier did not have the materials for his project and the installation would be delayed. Frustrated because [Alpine had several months to order the materials, F.T tolel Thompson that if the supplies were not in his yard by Tuesday of the following week, he wanted a refund of his $1,130 prepayment. When the materials were not there by Tuesday of the next week, P.T. asked Thompson to have ‘Alpine refnd his money. P.T. has had no contact with Thompson or Alpine sinee that day. Alpine never installed a fence in FT’s backyard and never returned his $1,130 prepayment. DP. 37. D.P. lives in Minneapolis and hired Alpine (o install a fence in his backyard in May 2015, Thompson personally came to D.P.’s home to measure his yard, agreed to a total price for the project of $5,195, and D.P. paid Thompson $2,597.50 while he was there. 1038. Thompson and D.P, agreed that Alpine would install his fence during the first week of July 2015, When no one showed up to install the fence, D.P. called Thompson and was told that a scheduling error was responsible for the delay. Throughout the remainder of July 2015, D.P. contacted Alpine several times to inquire about the status of his project, but neither ‘Thompson nor anyone else ever responded. 39. DP. texted Thompson on July 27, 2015, to cancel his contract and request a refund, ‘Thompson promptly called back D.P. and told him that cancellation resulted in D.P. owing Alpine a 50% “restocking” fee to be deducted from his prepayment, but that he would refund the rest of D.P.’s prepayment. D.P. repeatedly contacted Thompson from September 2015, through April 2016, about his refund, to no avail. Alpine never refunded any of D.P.’s $2,597.50 prepayment and never installed his fence. D.C. 40. D.C. lives in Maple Grove and contracted with Alpine in May 2016, to have it remove his old fence and install a new fence in his backyard. ‘Thompson personally negotiated the sale with D.C. at his home, and told D.C. that Alpine was acoredited by the BBB. This was untrue, Alpine’s accreditation had been revoked for almost a year at the time Thompson made this representation to D.C. D.C. agreed to pay Alpine a $950 prepayment, out of a total price of $1,950, for the project. Thompson told D.C. that his installation date would be two to three weeks out from the date he signed his contract, 41, When three weeks passed and D.C. had not heard anything, he contacted Alpine. “Thompson told D.C. that rain was delaying his project, but that someone from Alpine would start the project the next week. Someone from Alpine came to D.C.'s home several days later and began tearing down his old fence, but did not complete the work. ‘The Alpine representative ireturned to D.C.’s house two weeks later and told D.C. that Alpine did not have the funds to pay for the materials to install a new fence. 42. D.C. called Thompson in mid-May 2016, to cancel his contract and request @ full refund. Thompson agreed to refund D.C.’s $950 deposit, but said that his deposit was in “escrow” and that it would take two weeks to issue a refund, When D.C. never received a refuand, he filed a complaint with the BBB. Thompson called D.C. and asked him to withdraw his BBB complaint, promising in an email to D.C. to refund his entire $950 prepayment. To date, Alpine has not refunded his deposit or installed his fence. ee 43. Chanhassen resident J.P. hired Alpine to install a fence in his backyard in August 2015, J.P. arranged for Thompson to come to his home, and they agreed Alpine would install a fence for JP. for a total price of $11,950. J.P. paid Thompson a $5,975 deposit before he left, and Thompson agreed that Alpine would install his fence in September, 2015. J.P. subsequently paid Alpine another deposit of $360 for additional fencing materials, bringing his total prepayment to $6,335 (out of a new total price of $12,670). 44, When Alpine had not installed J.P’s fence by November 2015, J.P. did additional research on Alpine and discovered that its BBB accreditation had been revoked. J.P., through his lawyer, contacted Thompson to caneel his contract and request a refund. Thompson said he planned to keep $2,988 of J.P."s deposit as a “restocking” fee, but claimed he would refund the rest. LP. continued to contact Thompson over the next seven months demanding a full refund, but Thompson did not return his calls or text messages. Alpine finally sent J.P. $300 during the summer of 2016, but has not refunded the remai ing $6,035 of his prepayment and has not installed his fence. 12MLL. 45. MLL. lives in Maple Grove and, after seeing that Alpine's website claimed it was accredited by the BBB, spoke with Thompson in March 2016, about installing a fence at her home, Thompson reiterated to M.L. that Alpine was accredited by the BBB, and M.L. contracted with Alpine to install a fence in her backyard for a price of $2,352. Alpine's representations on its website and Thompson's representations to M.L. about Alpine’s BBB accreditation were untrue, At the time when M.L. viewed Alpine's website and when Thompson made his representations to M.L., Alpine’s BBB accreditation had been revoked by the BBB. ML. paid Thompson $1,176 as a 50% deposit for the project. Thompson told her that her fence would be installed no later than early May 2016. 46. Amonth went by and MLL. had not been contacted by anyone from Alpine, so she contacted Thompson to ask about the status of her fence. Eventually, after a month of back and forth with Thompson about her installation date, a representative of Alpine came to her home the morning of June 7, 2016, and told her he was going to install her fence. Later that same day, however, the Alpine representative contacted M.L. and told her that Alpine’s supplier did not have the necessary materials for him to begin her project. 47, MLL. contacted Thompson about her concerns on June 7, but he did not respond until June 15 by texting her that she could cancel her contract and get a full refund. Concerned about the ongoing delays, M.L, texted Thompson back and requested a full refund. But M.L. has not received a refund of her $1,176 deposit, and Alpine never installed her fence. s. 48. Bloomington resident $.S. hired Alpine to install a fence in her backyard in late October 2014. Thompson came to §.S.’s home and quoted her a price for the project of $2,860,S.S. subsequently decided to hire Alpine and mailed Alpine a deposit by check in the amount of $1,430. Thompson agreed Alpine would install her fence by November 21, 2014. 49. No one from Alpine came to $.S."s home to install her fence by November 21 and no one had called to explain why. When S.S. contacted Alpine for an update, Thompson indicated that weather had delayed her project. $.S. contacted Alpine several more times throughout November and early December, 2014. Each time that $.8. was able to reach Alpine, ‘Thompson indicated that weather was still delaying her project but she was next on his list 50, Around that same time, a representative of Alpine, who said he was Alpine’s lead fence installer, told §.S. that Alpine had not yet ordered the supplies necessary for her fence. SS, filed a complaint with the BBB, and contacted Thompson the same day requesting a full refund of her deposit. §.S."s complaint with the BBB was eventually sent to arbitration and Alpine was ordered to issue $.S.a full refund. Alpine sent S.8. a check for $715—or half of her $1,430 deposit—but has yct to refund the other $715 she is owed. COUNT I CONSUMER FRAUD 51, The State re-alleges all prior paragraphs of this Complaint 52. Minnesota Statutes section 325F,69, subdivision 1 provides: The act, use, of employment by any person of any fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, misleading statement or deceptive practice, with the intent that others rely thereon in connection with the sale of any merchandise, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived, or damaged thereby, is enjoinable as provided in section 325F.70. 53. The term “merchandise” within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes section 3258.69 includes, among other things, “goods” and “services.” Minn, Stat. § 325F.68, subd. 2.54, Alpine, under Thompson’s direction and control, repeatedly violated Minnesota Statutes section 325F.69, subdivision 1, by engaging in the deceptive and fraudulent conduct described in this Complaint with the intent that prospective and current customers would rely thereon in connection with the sale of goods and services to them, including by making false, deceptive, or misleading representations to Minnesota residents regarding, among other things, that Alpine was a BBB Accredited Business when in fact it was not, and that it would provide customers new fences and related goods, and install these fences and provide related services, in return for customers’ prepayments but then not actually providing these goods and services or refunding customers’ prepayments. 55. Due to the deceptive and fraudulent conduct described in this Complaint, Minnesota customers made prepayments to Alpine and Thompson when they otherwise would not have done so, thereby causing harm to said customers and enriching Alpine and Thompson. 56. ‘Thompson is individually liable for violating section 325F.69 based on the unlawful conduct described in this Complaint because he had authority to control and participated in Alpine’s business affairs, had authority to control and acquiesced to the unlawful conduct, and personally participated in the unlawful conduct, ns described in this 57. Alpine's and Thompson’s conduct, practices, and at Complaint—and failure to act when they were required to do so—constitute multiple, separate violations of Minnesota Statutes section 3257.69, COUNT IT TIVE TRADE PRACTICES DEC 58. The State re-alleges all prior paragraphs of this Complaint, 1559. Minnesota Statutes section 325D.44, subdivision 1, provides in part as follows: ‘A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of business, vocation, or occupation, the perso: ee (2) causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services; (3) causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, anoth (5) represents that goods or services have sponsorship, approval. characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that the person does not have: (13) engages in any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding. 60. Alpine, under Thompson's direction and control, repeatedly violated Minnesota Statutes section 325D.44, subdivision 1, by, in the course of their business, engaging in the deceptive and fraudulent conduet described in this Complaint, including by making false, 1g representations to Minnesota residents regarding, among other things, deceptive, or misleac that Alpine was a BBB Accredited Business (L.e., was a BBB-upproved or -certified business) when in fact it was not, and that it would provide customers new fences and related goods, and install these fences and provide related services, in retumn for customers’ prepayments but then not actually providing these goods and services or refunding customers’ prepayments. This and the other conduct described in this Complaint caused a likelihood of confusion and misunderstanding among Alpine’s customers regarding, among other things, whether or not 16Alpine was approved, certified, or otherwise associated with the BBB and whether or not Alpine would actually provide customers new fences and install these fences, 61. Due to the deceptive and fraudulent conduct described in this Complaint, Minnesota customers made prepayments to Alpine and Thompson when they otherwise would not have done so, thereby causing harm to said customers and enriching Alpine and Thompson. 62, ‘Thompson is individually liable for violating section 325D.44 based on the unlawful conduct described in this Complaint because he had authority to control and participated in Alpine’s business affairs, had authority to control and acquiesced to the unlawful conduct, and personally participated in the unlawful conduct, 63. Alpine’ and Thompson’s conduct, practices, and actions described in this Complaint—and failure to act when they were required to do so~constitute multiple, separate violations of Minnesota Statutes section 325D.44. RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff State of Minnesota, by its Atomey General, Lori Swanson, respectfully asks this Court to enter judgment against Defendants awarding the following relief: 1. Declating that Defendants’ acts as deseribed in this Complaint constitute multiple, separate violations of Minnesota Statutes sections 325D.44 and 325E.69; 2. Enjoining Thompson, Alpine, and Alpine’s employees, agents, successors, assignees, affiliates, merged or acquired predecessors, parent or controlling entities, subsidiaries, and all other persons acting in concert of participation with them, from engaging in the unlawful acts described in this Complaint, or in any other way violating Minnesota Statutes sections 325D.44 and 3258.69: 73. Requiting Thompson, Alpine, and Alpine’s employees, agents, successors, assignees, affiliates, merged or acquired predecessors, parent or controlling entities, subsidiaries, and all other persons acting in concert of participation with them, to undertake remedial actions to address the unlawful acts described in this Complaint, inclu ig but not limited to prohibiting Thompson and Alpine from continuing to provide the goods and services described in this Complaint, or i the alternative, prohibiting them from accepting prepayments prior to providing the entirety of the goods at issue and performing the entirety of the services at issue; 4. Awarding monetary relief pursuant to Minnesota Statutes sections 8.31, the parens patriae docttine, and the general equitable powers of this Court, as necessary to remedy the injury from Defendants’ acts described in this Complaint; 5. Awarding civil penalties pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 8.31, subdivision 3, for each separate violation of Minnesota law; 6. Awarding the State its attomeys’ fees, litigation costs, and costs of investigation as authorized by Minnesota Statutes section 8.31; and 7. Granting such further relief as provided for by law or equity, or as the Court deems appropriate and just. 18Dated:. December 14, 2016 Respectfully submitted, LORI SWANSON Attorney General State of Minnesota BENJAMIN VELZEN Assistant Attorney General (0592202) 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1200 St. Paul, MN 55101-2130 Telephone: (651) 757-1210 Fax: (651) 296-7438 sarah gillaspey@ag.state.mn.us ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 549.211 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The party or parties on whose behalf the attached document is served acknowledge through their undersigned counsel that sanetions may be imposed pursuant fo Minnesota Statutes section $49.21] Dated: December 14, 2016 < i pe SARAH GIZASPEY (#0392202) Assistant Akorney General 19