103.  Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant the remedy of restitution to themselves and to all  members of the class who made payments to Chase for Payment Protector. The Plaintiffs ask the  Court to grant the following relief:  a)  a refund of all Payment Protector payments made to Chase;  b)  a refund to any consumer who was retired at the time they were sold Payment  Protector by Chase;  c)  a refund to any consumer who was a senior citizen at the time they were sold  Payment Protector by Chase;  d)  a full refund to any consumer who was otherwise not eligible for Payment  Protector due to the restrictions in the coverage at the time the product was sold to  the consumer and who paid for the product.  104.  Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief enjoining Chase from continuing to engage in the  fraudulent, deceitful, unlawful and unfair common scheme as alleged herein.  d.  113.  The acts of Defendant constitute the tort of conversion under Arkansas law  through Chase's unlawful imposition of control over the personal property of Plaintiffs and class  members.  114.  Plaintiff and class members ask the Court for damages for the tortious acts of  conversion committed by Defendants.  32.  The Plaintiffs are among the thousands of Arkansas citizens who were targeted by  Chase as part of that company's credit card marketing programs, which include Chase's sales of  a product it calls "Payment Protector".   33.  In September, 2008, Chase purchased the assets and liabilities of Washington  Mutual and is therefore liable for acts committed in the sale and management of Payment  Protector by Washington Mutual prior to the purchase.   34.  Chase markets and sells "Payment Protector" as a product that Chase tells  cardholders will prevent cardholders from being "caught off guard" by providing benefits to  cardholders should they experience an "unexpected life event", such as unemployment or  disability. Chase charges the cardholder $.89 per hundred dollars of monthly account ending  balance. In return, Chase tells the cardholder that they are "enrolled" in the program and Chase  will make the minimum payments on the cardholder's account should the cardholder may be  unemployed or disabled or experiences another event that qualifies the cardholder for Payment  Protector benefits. These promises are illusory.   35.  Chase sells Payment Protector through misleading statements, incomplete  statements, and misrepresentations. The product is sold through print ads, printed inserts mailed  along with credit card statements and direct telemarketing.   37.  At the time of sale, Chase does not ask the cardholder any qualifying questions to  determine if the cardholder is eligible for Payment Protector benefits or to determine if the  cardholder will ever be eligible for Payment Protector benefits. Defendants do not disclose the  terms of Payment Protector until after the consumer accepts or is charged for the product. The  prolix documents that Chase eventually provides to cardholders, including plaintiff, that purports  to contain a list of exclusions or grounds for denial of benefits, but those documents do not  contain complete information about the claims practices Chase uses when denying benefits, and  are worded in such a way that the documents are meaningless and incomprehensible to the  average consumer.   38.  There are thousands of Arkansas Chase cardholders who have paid for Payment  Protector and are not eligible to receive benefits.  The terms and exclusions for Payment  Protector product are not adequately disclosed to consumers before the consumer buys the  product, and Payment Protector coverage is so restricted in benefits, and processing claims under  the coverage is made so difficult by Chase's use of numerous bureaucratic hurdles, that the  product is essentially worthless.   39.  Chase makes no effort at the time of sale to determine if the Payment Protector  coverage is available to the consumer before charging for the product. For example, numerous  senior citizens and retired Arkansas residents are charged for Payment Protector although they  are excluded from receiving benefits by Chase because they are not employed.   41.  Payment Protector is a product or service that Chase sold to its Arkansas credit  cardholders during the class period for a price of $.89 per $100 of month ending credit card  balance.   42.  Credit card companies, including Chase, have a substantial amount of personal  information about the cardholder. This information comes from the credit card application and  from other consumer research that Chase performs. At a minimum, at the time of sale of the  Payment Protector product, Chase has the cardholder's age, address and zip code.   43.  Chase's marketing materials told Arkansas consumers that Payment Protector  would provide peace of mind if something unexpected should happen because the minimum  monthly payment on the cardholder's account balance will be paid and this will also help  safeguard cardholders' good credit rating.   44.  Chase promises Arkansas consumers that Payment Protector will pay the  minimum monthly payment if the cardholder or the secondary cardholder is involuntarily  unemployed or unable to work due to disability or experiences another covered event.   45.  Before selling the Payment Protector product, Chase does not review its records or  ask the cardholder a single question to determine if Payment Protector is appropriate for the  customer. Chase could easily ask the customer's age, physical condition, or employment status,  but Chase does not ask any ofthese questions.   47.  Chase relies upon a deceptive practice known as "post claims underwriting" to  deny claims and increase profits. This is the practice of asking few or no questions of the  cardholder at the time of sale to determine if the customer is qualified for the product, then when  the customer attempts to use the "benefits" of Payment Protector, Chase denies the benefits for a  reason related to age, employment status, physical condition, or one of the many other reasons for  denial listed in the preceding paragraph.   48.  Chase does not have a policy of refunding unearned premiums, so customers paid  for Payment Protector for years, made an application for a benefit, were turned down for benefit  payments because of some reason for disqualification that was not disclosed at the time of sale,  and then receive no refund ofthe premiums paid.  Payment Protector compared to credit insurance   49.  The marketing of Payment Protector makes the product sound like a form of credit  insurance, but the customer is not told at the time of sale that the product is not credit life,  disability insurance or credit insurance.   51.  Chase's branding of this product as "Payment Protector" is a misleading or  deceptive act that constitutes an attempt to obscure or conceal the nature and value ofthe product  when selling it to Arkansas consumers.   52.  Payment Protector was designed by Chase so that it could continue to sell credit  insurance products while avoiding the consumer protections provided by the Arkansas Insurance  Department, such as the licensing of sales agents, the regulation ofrates, the approval ofmethods  of marketing, the regulation of products that can be sold, and the regulation of claims practices.   53.  Arkansas consumers who purchased Payment Protector received documents days  or weeks after the sale.   54.  Among the Payment Protector documents are some exclusions buried in fme print.  The exclusions are not clearly written or prominently displayed, and it is not possible for the  Arkansas consumer to determine all of the exclusions that apply at the time the customer applies  for Payment Protector or its benefits.   56.  The Payment Protector product is worthless to a large number of Arkansas  cardholders who paid for the product during the class period, in particular senior citizens and  retired persons.  Unlawful Conduct ofChase in the Sale ofPayment Protector.   57.  Chase markets Payment Protector to consumers, including those who fall into the  "subprime" credit category and therefore have low credit limits on their credit cards.   58.  Chase sells the Payment Protector product as a service that will safeguard the  consumer's credit and provide peace of mind by making minimum credit card payments upon  some contingency that results in the cardholder's inability to make payments.   59.  Chase does not provide essential terms of the product at the time of sale. Key  terms governing Payment Protector are not disclosed.   60.  The product terms and qualifiers that are disclosed after sale are incomplete,  misleading, deceptive, and difficult to read and understand for the ordinary Arkansas Chase  cardholder.   62.  Chase fails to provide adequate information regarding Payment Protector  coverage and restrictions prior to selling the product, and then provides information about the  product that is deceptive, misleading, obfuscatory and incomplete.   63.  As an example of misleading and obfuscatory language, Payment Protector  appears to be a fmancial product or service that is ordinarily sold as credit life or disability  insurance, yet the product materials carefully avoid any use of the word "insurance".  The  product materials do, however, refer to making "claims", which is either truthful (if this is  insurance) or deceptive and misleading (if this product is something other than insurance).   64.  Although represented to the consumer as something in the nature of an insurance  product, the Payment Protector product is virtually worthless to many Arkansas Chase  cardholders because of the numerous restrictions and exclusions that are imposed after the  consumer buys the product, and because of the administrative and bureaucratic hurdles that are  placed in the way of the Arkansas consumer who attempts to secure payments from Chase under  this coverage.   66.  The Payment Protector product serves Chase's interest in generating substantial  fee income, and has the added benefit to Chase of lowering available credit to its subprime  cardholders through the imposition of this additional fee.  Senior Citizens   67.  Chase violated Ark. Code Ann. §4-88-201 et seq. in marketing this product to  Arkansas senior citizens and is therefore liable for additional civil penalties for acts committed  against senior citizens. See A.C.A. §4-88-201 et seq.  V.  68.  Plaintiff Harold G. Smith was a senior citizen at all times that he received and  paid for Payment Protector from Chase.   69.  Plaintiff was the recipient of Chase marketing for Payment Protection during the  class period, purchased Payment Protection, and paid the charges for Payment Protector.   70.  Although he paid for the Payment Protector product, Mr. Smith was never eligible  for the advertised benefits of Payment Protector coverage due to the product's restrictions and  exclusions because he was self-employed.   72.  No information was provided by Chase that provided Harold Smith with sufficient  knowledge about the product limitations and exclusions of Payment Protector that he could make  an informed decision about the value of the product.   73.  Payment Protector coverage exclusions and restrictions are revealed to the  consumer only after the coverage has already been sold to the Chase cardholder, and even then  the disclosures are incomplete and are written in fme print in language that is hard for the  ordinary customer to understand.   74.  Chase makes no efforts to determine if the cardholder is eligible for Payment  Protector benefits prior to charging for this service.  b.  Facts as to PlaintiffWarren Prince   75.  Plaintiff Warren Prince was self-employed and owned his own business when he  obtained a Washington Mutual (WaMu) card, and purchased and paid for Payment Protector.  Washington Mutual is now owned by Defendants and is referred to here as WaMuiChase   76.  Plaintiff received a mail solicitation to sign up for Payment Protector with one of  his monthly statements, along with marketing materials for the Payment Protector product.  Plaintiff signed the enclosed enrollment form and mailed it back.   77.  Although he paid for the Payment Protector product, Mr. Prince was never  eligible for the advertised benefits of Payment Protector due to the product's restrictions and  exclusions, specifically because he was self-employed.   79.  On information and belief, Plaintiff asserts that WaMu/Chase denied Mr. Prince  Payment Protector benefits because he was self-employed, owning his own business.   80.  Payment Protector coverage exclusions and restrictions were revealed to the  consumer only after the coverage has already been sold to the WaMu/Chase cardholder, and even  then the disclosures were incomplete and were written in fine print in language that is hard for  the ordinary customer to understand.   81.  WaMuChase made no efforts to determine if the cardholder was eligible for  Payment Protector prior to selling the product to the cardholder.  VI.  82.  Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of all other  persons similarly situated (the "Class"), pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23 of the Arkansas  Rules of Civil Procedure.   84.  Excluded from the proposed Class are defendants and any person, firm, trust,  corporation or other entity related to or affiliated with any defendants.   85.  The Class is composed of hundreds or thousands of Arkansas Chase cardholders,  the joinder of which in one action would be impracticable. The disposition of the claims of the  proposed class members through this class action will benefit both the parties and the Court. The  identities of individual members of the Class are readily ascertainable through the defendants'  billing records.   87.  Plaintiffs assert claims that are typical of the Class. They were targeted by Chase  for sale of Payment Protector, they were subjected to Chase's standardized mass marketing  practices, and he purchased and paid for Payment Protector, and they were subjected to Chase's  fraudulent claims practices. Plaintiffs and the Class members have similarly suffered harm  arising from Chase's violations of the law as alleged in this amended complaint.   88.  Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class because their interests do not  conflict with the interests of the Class members they seek to represent. Plaintiffs will fairly and  adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class.  Plaintiffs' interests are not  antagonistic to those of the Class members. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and  experienced in the prosecution of class litigation.   90.  Plaintiffs restate and reallege the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as though  set out here word for word.   91.  Defendants' actions in connection with their Payment Protector plan, as described  throughout this Complaint, constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in or affecting  commerce, for purposes ofArkansas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act.   92.  Each Plaintiff is an "individual, organization, group, association, partnership,  corporation, or any combination of them," for purposes of Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-1 02(4), who  has purchased Payment Protector coverage.   93.  Each Defendant is an "individual, organization, group, association, partnership,  corporation, or any combination of them" for purposes of Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-1 02(4).   94.  Plaintiffs have been injured as a result of Defendants' activities which violate the  Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Specifically, Plaintiffs have become responsible for the  payments attributable to Payment Protector coverage, even though that service is virtually  worthless to Plaintiffs.   95.  Defendants' conduct constitutes false, misleading and/or deceptive practices  within the meaning of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-101,  et seq., specifically, § 4-88-107.   97.  Defendants' conduct is subject to civil penalties pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 4­ 88-113, attorney fees pursuant to Ark Code Ann. §4-88-113, and is subject to civil penalties  pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §4-88-202. In addition Defendant's conduct is subject to an award  of attorney fees and costs.   98.  Plaintiffs and class members seek court-ordered relief of an equitable nature  against Defendants, including, but not limited to, orders declaring Defendants' practices as  alleged to be unlawful, unfair, unconscionable ancIJor deceptive, and enjoining Defendants from  undertaking any further unlawful, unfair, unconscionable ancIJor deceptive acts or omissions.   99.  Plaintiffs and class members seek disgorgement and restitution of charges paid for  Payment Protector, plus interest on damages at the legal rate, as well as three times the amount of  their economic damages based on Defendants' knowing and intentional violations of this statute.  Plaintiffs seek restitution for acts committed against a senior citizen, defined by Arkansas  Statutes as a person over the age of60 years. Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-201(a).  100.  Because Plaintiffs and class members seek to enforce an important right affecting  the public interest, Plaintiffs request an award of attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of  themselves and the class.  10 1.  As a result of Defendants' violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices  Act prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts and practices, Plaintiffs and members of the Class have  suffered monetary damages for which Defendants are liable.  b.  Class Action Allegations.   Trade Practices Act.   a.  Facts as to PlaintiffHarold G. Smith  