Vehicle Wrapping Scam

Filter by:

ATTENTION: Consumers who have been contacted by vehicle wrap scammers could have had their personal information breached. Angry Citizen highly recommends that consumers whose information has been breached obtain identity theft protection service immediately. There are several companies that offer identity theft protection in the US. One of the most inexpensive options we were able to find is the protection offered by LifeLock. You can start your protection here.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions contained on this site are not endorsed by LifeLock. Angry Citizen receives compensation from LifeLock. This helps support our scam prevention efforts.

  • Jaegermeister advertising

    $500.00Unresolved

    I received an email from Patricia for wrapping my car with jaegers advertisement was told that i would receive 500.00 a week for this. i would receive an initial check from them by UPS for the amt of 2200.00 i was supposed to send 1700.00 to brandy lynn reitz-hardy in sanger ca. thru western union when i deposited the check my bank told me it was altered and fictitious. i contacted Patricia and accused her of scamming me and she asked if i was mad at her.

    Show more
    • My demands: i would like money for my pain and suffering
    • User Recommendation: Stay away
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Monetary damages: $500.00
    • Agents: Patricia Campbell
    • Phone: 985-205-9530
    jojo574
    Aug 05, 2015
    Complaint #: 199
    Did you find this complaint useful?
    Yes (2)No (0) Leave comment
  • Auto wrap for 300.00 a week

    $0.00Unresolved

    An email saying they would pay me $300. A week for up to 3 months to do an "auto-wrap" on my car for Monster Energy Drink. I called Monster and they said they NEVER DO THIS.

    Show more
    • My demands: Just catch the scammers
    • User Recommendation: Stay away
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Monetary damages: $0.00
    • Agents: Robert Miller
    • URL: [email protected]
    1958metro
    Jun 22, 2015
    Complaint #: 46
    Did you find this complaint useful?
    Yes (3)No (0) Leave comment
Public discussion