�鶹��ý

The �鶹��ý Trade Commission, along with the New York Attorney General, are taking action against gig economy company Handy Technologies for making a broad array of deceptive claims about how much money workers on its platform could earn.

The complaint charges that Handy, which currently does business as Angi Services, has peppered its advertisements with earnings claims that don’t reflect the reality for the overwhelming majority of workers on the platform. The complaint also charges that Handy has failed to clearly disclose fees and fines that have led to millions of dollars being withheld from workers.

Under the terms of a proposed settlement order, Handy would be required to turn over $2.95 million to be used to provide refunds to harmed workers, and make substantial changes to ensure that workers give clear consent to any fees charged by the company and that the company gives workers clear direction about how to avoid fines.

“Handy Technologies relied on inflated and false earnings claims to lure workers onto its platform. It then deducted inadequately disclosed fines and fees from their wages,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The order announced today puts a stop to these unlawful practices and ensures an honest marketplace for American workers.”

“New York workers deserve to be paid what they are promised, when they are promised,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. “Apps like Handy’s offer New Yorkers flexible job opportunities, but they cannot be allowed to lure workers with lies and false promises. Together with our partners at the FTC, we are holding Handy accountable and requiring the company to pay $2.95 million back to thousands of workers who were misled. My office will never hesitate to take action against companies that cheat hardworking New Yorkers.”

According to the complaint, Handy has widely advertised that workers who do gig jobs through their platform—often cleaning homes and doing repair and maintenance projects—will be paid specific amounts and will be paid “as soon as the job is done.” In fact, new workers on the platform are by default generally paid seven days after the work they do is complete. Workers seeking to be paid “as soon as the job is done” must pay an additional fee and can only do so after completing another job for Handy.

The complaint notes that the amounts advertised by Handy often far outstrip any reasonable amount that a worker could expect to be paid. In New York, New Jersey, and California, advertisements have touted pay “at least” or “up to” a rate that is only accessible to workers who successfully move into the highest pay tier offered. That requires meeting targets for numbers of jobs completed and customer ratings that a vast majority of workers are unable to achieve. In other markets, Handy advertised pay for handyman/furniture assembly jobs as high as $45 an hour, even when more than 90 percent of workers made far less – on average more than $20 an hour less.

Similarly, Handy advertised lawn care jobs as paying as much as $62 an hour when that rate was made by less than 10 percent of workers. The claims happened in markets across the country; one worker in Memphis, Tennessee, complained “Handy is misrepresenting itself. This [$62/hour] is not even close to what I’m getting paid, it is not a slight misrepresentation, it is actually off by almost 3x what we are making.”

Handy also has regularly charged its workers an array of fees and fines that it fails to adequately disclose, according to the complaint. Handy has a series of fines they impose on workers (and deduct from their pay) for a variety of issues. In particular, the complaint highlights an issue that has affected thousands of workers, in which the person or company requesting a job through Handy tells the worker not to show up to the job, but then fails to properly cancel the job in Handy’s system. In these instances where the worker is in no way at fault for the job not being complete, Handy has regularly fined these workers $50 for each instance.

The only way for workers to avoid fines in situations where a requester cancels a job is to follow a complicated process that Handy does not adequately disclose to workers, according to the complaint. The process is complex and time-consuming, requiring workers to give GPS permission to Handy’s app and wait more than 30 minutes at the site, among other requirements. The complaint notes that Handy has fined its workers for these kinds of cancellations thousands of times. The impact of these fines and fees on Handy’s workers, which it calls “Pros,” can be significant. As Handy’s Operations Manager acknowledged in an email to its Customer Experience Manager, “Many pros are on public assistance/housing.”

The proposed settlement that Handy has agreed to would require the company to turn over $2.95 million to be used to provide refunds to workers who were harmed by the company’s practices. In addition, the settlement would require Handy to get workers’ express, informed consent before charging them any fee or fine—including clearly disclosing any requirements or processes to avoid those fees and fines. The settlement would also require the company to back up any claims it makes about how much workers can potentially make and ensure those claims reflect what a typical worker is likely to make.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order was 5-0. Commissioner Andrew Ferguson issued a statement concurring in part and dissenting in part. Commissioner Melissa Holyoak concurs in this matter, but dissents as to the “up to” earnings claims in Count I (Misrepresentations Regarding Earnings) and Count V (Violations of Prior Commission Determinations Known to Defendant). The FTC filed the complaint and final order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated final injunctions/orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The staff attorneys on this matter were Edward Hynes, David Alex, Anne LeJeune and Tammy Chung of the FTC’s Southwest Region.