16 Facts About InPhonic

InPhonic Inc was an American company which sold wireless services and devices online, both through its own electronic commerce sites and through private labeled websites it created and managed for online retailers.

InPhonic was headquartered in Washington, DC and maintained technology and operations centers in Largo, Maryland.

InPhonic was founded in 1999 by David A Steinberg who resigned in 2007 due to poor debt management and decreasing revenues.

Wireless carriers did business with InPhonic because acquiring a customer through the company can be less expensive than traditional marketing approaches designed to generate sales at a brick-and-mortar store.

InPhonic, in turn, received a commission from carriers for each new account generated, once the customer met a number of criteria.

Related searches

On November 8,2007, InPhonic filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code.

In November 2007, InPhonic filed a Chapter 11 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

InPhonic attributed its bankruptcy filing, in part, to a recent default under a prepetition credit agreement, as well as illiquidity and declining revenues caused by unprofitable marketing activities and an inability to maintain adequate inventory of the most popular wireless devices.

Cell phone sites operated by InPhonic included: A1 Wireless, ACN Wireless, Cellular Buys, Cellular Choices, Corporate Wireless, FonCentral, INTELENET Wireless, Liberty Wireless, lowcostcells.

InPhonic maintained an unsatisfactory rating with the Better Business Bureau serving Washington DC and Eastern Pennsylvania.

The FCC further alleged that InPhonic misled some consumers about the number of wireless bills that had to be submitted with their rebate application and misrepresented that consumers would have a reasonable opportunity to resubmit rebate applications that were deemed incomplete.

InPhonic was ordered to pay consumers who applied for a rebate with the company but were denied a check based on the company's deceptive and unfair practices.

InPhonic earlier settled similar charges leveled by the District of Columbia attorney general.

Large number of InPhonic's customers complained about the non-fulfillment of rebates that were promised to customers.

InPhonic had established relationships with a range of e-commerce partners to provide wireless activation services.

InPhonic ran fulfillment for original equipment manufacturers like the Motorola and LG brands.