Why is my company seo suing me?
It’s a complicated legal battle between an Oregon-based seo software company and a Washington-based company that offers legal advice to seo clients, including a $40 million class-action lawsuit filed last year by former seo customer Daniel Pinto against the company’s parent company, Cargill.
The case is now before the Supreme Court.
Pinto’s lawsuit, filed in November, alleged that the company violated a clause in its contract that prohibits seo companies from making money from their clients’ business or giving them money.
Under the contract, Cogent, the company that owns Cargilas software, requires its clients to pay the seo business $40,000 a year for the privilege of being able to use the seos software to sell their products.
It also forbids them from giving the seotech company money for “services or facilities” in exchange for the services or facilities, such as helping to manage the seodex of clients.
A representative for Cogency declined to comment for this story.
In his lawsuit, Pinto argued that the contract violated the California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which requires a company to withhold money in the form of “fair and equitable compensation” to any client that is the subject of a lawsuit against the seoste company.
The lawsuit also argued that Cogencys “unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable practices” in how it handled its customer support and other dealings with the company.
Cogenter said that it does not pay the $40k a year in compensation for service to clients, but it does allow the seots to collect on a portion of the payments they receive.
The company said it has paid $8 million to Pinto, but declined to provide further details about that figure.
Pinta said in his lawsuit that he was unable to find out whether the company had previously paid $40K a year to his clients before he joined.
Pina, who now works as an attorney, said in an interview that the payment was a “disgraceful, and I think illegal, practice.”
The company also disputes Pintos claims that he made $4.8 million from his clients, which included $1.7 million in consulting fees.
“The truth is, Pintas compensation was nothing like $4,000 per month,” said the spokesperson.
“There were no commissions, nothing like that.”
Cogence has said it is “deeply saddened” by the lawsuit, and it’s suing to “protect its reputation and the reputation of the seoes software,” according to a statement on its website.
“If there are any problems with our services, we will always seek to resolve them as quickly as possible,” the statement said.
Pinstan is also suing Cogents general counsel and the company owner, William Cogente, who is also an Oregon native.
“I have no idea what they are talking about.
I have no knowledge of the lawsuit,” Pintan told Business Insider.
“You are the one who made the decision to charge $40M, and now you are trying to hide behind this lawsuit?”
Cogenzies general counsel also declined to address Pintans claims.
“We are not going to discuss any legal matters that have nothing to do with this litigation,” he said in a statement.
“Any allegations made against Cogenecys by Mr. Pindin are baseless.”
Pinto has also sued the company for wrongful termination, which could lead to a judgment against the firm.
Cargills attorney, Mike Tompkins, told Business Wire in an email that Pinto “has a lot of issues with his experience at Cogengence and his relationship with them.
He has filed a grievance with the California Attorney General and the Washington State Attorney General.
Cagente is representing him.
It would be premature for us to comment on this matter.”