5 steps to protect your company against warranty fraud
If your company is successful, chances are you have terrific products and an equally good warranty support program.
February 25, 2013 at 04:15 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This is the second installment in a series on warranty fraud. Read part one here.
If your company is successful, chances are you have terrific products and an equally good warranty support program. Potential customers look at your warranty program and have confidence to buy your products. Criminals, though, look at your warranty program as an opportunity to steal millions of dollars of new product from you.
How do successful companies balance the need to be customer friendly with being sensible about fraud?
One company, networking equipment giant Cisco Systems, headquartered in San Jose, California, has instituted a program to address the problem of fraudulent warranty claims, with significant success. “Several years ago, we proactively addressed potential problems around warranty abuse and took aggressive measures to plug any holes we came across,” says William Friedman, director of litigation at Cisco. “We developed a program, supported it and saw cases through to conclusion.”
Cisco was in danger of becoming an attractive target, because of its SMARTnet technical support services program and products that were readily sold in the secondary market. “As the popularity of our warranty program expanded, we did not want to be seen as an easy target. With all of the work we have done, potential criminals would have a hard time viewing us that way,” says Friedman.
The proactive work has paid off . In the last few years, there have been significant prosecutions of those who defrauded Cisco, which have sent a clear warning signal to other criminals. Examples are:
- Nicholas Stoupis (Boston, MA): Stole $3.7 million through warranty fraud scheme. Pleaded guilty, sentenced to 51 months in prison and ordered to pay all $3.7 million back to Cisco.
- Kent Scott Andrews (Cleveland, Ohio): Stole $1.9 millionin products through warranty fraud scheme. Pleaded guilty, sentenced to 33 months in prison and ordered to pay everything back to Cisco.
- Scott and Julie Rasmussen (Las Vegas, NV): Stole more than $3 million in warranty fraud scheme. Pleaded guilty, sentenced to 48 months (Scott) and 30 months (Julie) in prison and ordered to pay over $3 million back to Cisco.
The lessons learned from Cisco's success show that companies need a sustained commitment to combat the problem, combined with a comprehensive program with five key elements.
1. Identify the problem. Before you can come up with a solution, you need to understand how you are being defrauded. Are there holes in your warranty program? What products are the criminals getting?
2. Identify the path to market. A criminal generally does not hold on to the stolen product. He needs to off-load it to a reseller. What companies are buying stolen products and how should you engage with them (if at all)?
3. Identify the metrics. In order to get executive buy-off for making changes to your warranty program, you need to gauge the risk and potential losses related to not making a change. Do your homework and get your executive team behind you.
4. Plug the holes. As you identify areas of improvement in your internal controls, fix them so that fraud becomes more difficult. A fraud averted due to internal controls will save you from having to chase the stolen property.
5. Give your program teeth. If criminals can easily defraud you, they will. And word that there is money to be made off your warranty program will spread. But, if there is a serious risk of being caught, and a commitment by the company to refer the cases for prosecution or to civilly sue the major bad actors, that message spreads too.
Although there is no one-size-fits-all solution, building a commitment and a team to confront warranty fraud is necessary and a money-saving measure. As summed up by Friedman, “the cost of doing nothing is just too high.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Trending Stories
- 1Eversheds Sutherland Adds Hunton Andrews Energy Lawyer With Cross-Border Experience
- 2Balancing Judicial Authority: Understanding Sanctions, Severance, and Interferences
- 3Up in the Air: Boeing’s Deferred Prosecution Saga Continues
- 4Legal Tech's Predictions for Knowledge Management in 2025
- 5Fenwick Shutters Shanghai Office
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250