'Passive Income on Autopilot': The Amazon and Crypto Scheme That Sent $2.8 Million Back to Victims

The Federal Trade Commission sent $2.8 million in refunds to consumers harmed by DK Automation and its owners, Kevin David Hulse and David Shawn Arnett, who the agency says used unfounded claims of big returns to entice consumers into moneymaking schemes involving Amazon and Walmart business packages, business coaching, and cryptocurrency.DOCUMENTED

According to the FTC's original complaint, the company and its owners promised consumers they could "generate passive income on autopilot" — a promise the agency says few consumers ever actually realized.DOCUMENTED

Two schemes, one promise

DK Automation sold its programs under a number of different names, including AMZDFY, Amazon Done For You, and Amazon Done With You, each pitching consumers on the idea of a hands-off online store built and managed largely on their behalf.DOCUMENTED The company also pitched a supposed cryptocurrency investment service featuring what it called its "#1 secret passive income crypto trading bot," which marketing materials claimed could "generate profits for you even while you sleep."DOCUMENTED

According to the FTC, the company's marketing and sales pitches for both the e-commerce and crypto offerings were filled with fake consumer reviews touting huge profits — testimonials the agency alleges did not reflect the actual, typical experience of people who paid for the programs.REVIEWED

What the FTC's action required

The FTC's complaint alleged that the promised "passive income on autopilot" did not materialize for the vast majority of consumers who paid into either the e-commerce or the crypto-trading program.DOCUMENTED A proposed court order required the defendants to turn over $2.6 million to be used for consumer refunds, along with requirements to stop making deceptive earnings pitches and to comply with the law going forward.DOCUMENTED

Marketing for the crypto trading bot promised it would "generate profits for you even while you sleep." The FTC says few consumers who paid for either the crypto program or the Amazon packages ever saw meaningful returns.

The scale of the refund distribution

The FTC ultimately distributed $2.8 million in refunds to affected consumers — a figure slightly larger than the $2.6 million initially designated in the proposed order, reflecting how the final distributed amount in FTC refund programs can include additional recovered funds identified after a settlement is first announced.REVIEWED Because the underlying scheme combined two distinct moneymaking pitches — e-commerce storefronts and cryptocurrency trading — under one operation, the case illustrates how business-opportunity fraud has increasingly diversified beyond a single product category, allowing operators to redirect a disappointed e-commerce customer toward a different pitch, like crypto, rather than losing that customer's business entirely.REVIEWED

Why bundled moneymaking pitches complicate consumer protection

When a single company markets multiple distinct types of "passive income" opportunities simultaneously, a consumer who grows skeptical of one pitch — say, an Amazon storefront that isn't performing as promised — may be redirected by the same sales team toward a different offering, like a crypto trading bot, without recognizing that both pitches originate from an operator with a documented pattern of unsubstantiated earnings claims.REVIEWED That structure can make it harder for consumers doing basic due diligence on one specific product to discover a company's broader track record, since complaints and reviews tied to the e-commerce program may not surface when someone searches specifically for information about the crypto offering, or vice versa.REVIEWED

The involvement of cryptocurrency in DK Automation's pitch also reflects a broader trend the FTC has tracked across business-opportunity fraud generally: as public interest in a particular investment category rises, whether real estate, e-commerce, or crypto, existing fraud operations frequently add a version of their pitch tailored to that category, using the same underlying sales infrastructure and, often, the same fabricated testimonials reworded to fit the new product.REVIEWED Consumers evaluating any moneymaking opportunity — regardless of the specific asset class involved — can look for the same warning signs: guaranteed or "passive" returns, testimonials that cannot be independently verified, and reluctance to provide concrete data about how many past customers actually profited.REVIEWED

The refund distribution itself, spread across a large but unspecified number of individual claimants, reflects the FTC's standard practice of returning whatever assets it can recover from a settlement to affected consumers on a pro-rata basis, meaning the actual amount any individual consumer received depended on both the total funds recovered and the total number of eligible claimants who came forward during the claims process.REVIEWED

The names under which DK Automation marketed its Amazon-focused offering — AMZDFY, Amazon Done For You, Amazon Done With You — each signal a different level of hands-on involvement the company claimed to provide, from fully automated management to guided assistance, though the FTC's complaint alleges that regardless of which specific package a consumer purchased, the underlying pattern of unfulfilled income promises was consistent across all of them.REVIEWED That consistency across differently branded offerings is itself a common feature of business-opportunity fraud investigations, since operators frequently maintain several product tiers or brand names simultaneously to capture different segments of the same prospective customer pool.REVIEWED

Consumers who paid into DK Automation's programs and have questions about the refund process can contact the FTC's designated refund administrator directly, using the contact information the agency published alongside its refund announcement, rather than responding to any unsolicited email or call claiming to represent the refund process, since scammers frequently impersonate legitimate FTC refund notices to harvest banking information from consumers expecting a real payment.REVIEWED The Commission's interactive refund dashboards also allow any consumer to independently verify a given case's payment status rather than relying solely on a phone call or email claiming to originate from the agency.REVIEWED

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.