Tag Archives: modeling scams

Supermodels Unlimited Makes Models “Pay to Play” – Your actually no longer a model, your a customer!

9-9-22

Supermodels Unlimited reached out to consumer, Berta Moniz, claiming to collaborate in a shoot at NYFW, where she would get an opportunity to model for Christian Siriano, GAP, Michael Kors, and Levi’s. They go on to state “models get to pick which our these four prolific designer labels they would like to model for in a publication for $299. The wording in these statements are extremely misleading and give off the impression, that you are going to walk away from this opportunity and be able to put on your resume that you actually modeled in a photoshoot for one of these major designers. However, it is highly unlikely that these major designers are allowing SU to actually pick “their models” for their clothes line. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that these major designers are going to participate in a “pay to play” scam. What “pay to play” is actually charging someone to model, which is not how the credible industry works.

I am pretty sure, Michael Kors is going to pick the models for his clothes line and I am pretty sure these models are going to get paid. If we apply the logic of what SU is trying to implement, any of us could simply take a photograph wearing a designers clothes and claim we actually modeled for that designer….UM…think about the ridiculousness of that!

They go on to send Berta, yet another fabricated opportunity to model and this time for GUESS, claiming they partnered with GUESS and Berta can pay to be a GUESS model. And with every solicitation, they always make sure to state “this will take place during NYFW”. This again is misleading as it makes it sound like these photoshoots are actually going to happen in what the public believes is this highly elite event conducted by CFDA, IMG, & FWI (who has the online ticket rights). However, when you go to FWI’s website, who allows unknown designers to participate in their open to the public shows, which is quite different then the closed industry shows that have been coined with NYFW since the 1940s, there is nothing mentioning this under Supermodels Unlimited Public Show. Wouldn’t you think if photoshoots for these iconic designers were actually taking place at the real NYFW it would be mentioned under the description of SU’s open to the public show? I would assume that SU names NYFW in these solicitations because there was a relevant reason to? However, it just seems to be more misleading fabricated solicitation tactics to mislead the public into giving them more money.

You might not care about spending money on a “pay to play” scam, however, no business should mislead the public into purchasing their product. And anytime anyone I know in the industry sees anything connected to SU, they know more then likely the model paid to play

Beauty Queens’ Lawyers Sending Legal Letters to Supermodels Unlimited – After SU threatens a Queen & Maliciously Made Another Queen Travel to NYC to Humiliate Her

9-9-22

When scrolling through google after typing in “Supermodels Unlimited Scam”, you will find pages of unhappy customers accusing Supermodels Unlimited (SU) of scamming the public. More Queens are starting to open up on Social Media platforms to express how they feel they were scammed by SU, as seen this past week when the news of these 2 Queens came out.

Upon researching Supermodels Unlimited (SU), to substantiate what they are portraying to the public, there seems to be inconsistencies to their claims. For those who know about “Pay to Play” scams in the entertainment and modeling industry, it appears that SU is doing just that. They target naive people aspiring to be discovered by having them pay for work as a model, rather then having them get paid to work as a model. However, Berta Moniz & Mary Ward, were not ignorant and started to do their research after being enlightened to how the entertainment and modeling industry actually operate.

They began to question SU as to why they claimed specific things that cannot be verified. SU did not like to have anyone question them, not even someone who was paying $1000s believing in statements told to them that could not be substantiated.

How did SU handle it? They teamed up on the phone with Kimberly Clark & Mary Baldwin, where they berated, yelled, & threatened Berta Moniz, for asking them simple questions she wanted clarity to. Berta left this phone call completely broken down, to where she no longer wanted to participate in anything they were doing. Thus, she had her attorney issue a legal letter to SU demanding a refund for the thousands of dollars Berta had spent with them

Then they teamed up on Mary Ward, in an effort to berate and intimidate her from questioning them. However, they took it even further, by leading Mary Ward to believe that she would still be able to participate in an event that she had paid for and won, only to forbid her to participate after she traveled from Georgia to NYC. They intentionally allowed Mary Ward to travel to NYC when they knew all along they were not going to allow her to participate. They could have told Mary Ward during their conversation with her two days prior, that they would not allow her to participate because she questioned the legitimacy of what they were doing.

Since then Mary Ward has hired a Lawyer who will be drafting another legal letter in an effort to retrieve the large amount of money invested into this event

Both Mary Ward and Berta Moniz are attempting to allow SU to reimburse them for their loss. However, if SU does not do so, both Queens stated they are planning to file a lawsuit against this company and hope this will bring awareness to others who have also been affected by this company

Supermodels Unlimited Strips Queen of Her Crown in NYC Airport after SU Made Unreasonable Demands for Queen to Keep Her Mouth Shut

9-8-22

Written by: Cynthia Lester

It is no surprise that once again, Supermodels Unlimited (SU) is being questioned about alleged scams against this company. Upon a google search, you will find pages of bad reviews and scams alleged against SU, starting from the early 2000s to present day. They have been accused of not providing promised services or products that have been paid for, deceptively advertising events, misleading the public about their opportunities, keeping profits that they lead consumers to believe was going to charities.

They seems to have a recipe to mask these scam allegations, by continuing to create hype and credibility by paying to have “has been” celebrities appear at their events where they take pictures and circulate announcements where yet more consumers put their trust in this business.

Unfortunately for Mary Ward, from Georgia, she fell victim to deceptive advertising when she placed money in a competition to win a title, photography session, & walk down the catwalk in NYC from Supermodels Unlimited (SU). Mary Ward ended up winning the title, photography session, & walk down the catwalk in NYC, which she had to rearrange her entire work schedule, investing money in costly airfare & hotel accommodations, relying on SU to provide this opportunity as they stated they would.

One week prior to attending SU’s event in NYC, Mary Ward discovered that SU’s event was not linked to CDFA & IMG’s schedule of events. CDFA & IMG are the two organizations that are known to the public as New York Fashion Week (NYFW). Thus, Mary began to question why SU was advertising their event as connected to NYFW. Mary further began to hear from other women that they were being told by SU that GUESS has partnered with them for a photoshoot during NYFW & could not find anything on this “so called” business partnership between SU and GUESS. Women relied on what had been told to them by SU, when they decided to hand money over to SU to be a part of these experiences to further their career in the modeling industry.

On 9-6-22, SU called Mary Ward, accusing her to spreading slander about their organization simply because she had been affiliated in a satiric comedy calling out and questioning businesses who were claiming to be connected to certain large companies and leading consumers to believe they could make someone famous if they paid enough money. At no point did Mary Ward ever make reference to SU by their name.

During the phone call between Mary Ward & SU on 9-6-22, SU asked Mary Ward if she still planned to attend the NYC event and keep her title. She verbally told them yes, as she has already made accommodations with her job and invested money to attend. SU unliterally decided to require Mary Ward to confirm in text after she already verbally told them she planned to attend. Mary Ward, was advised by her attorney to not put any response in text and unless Mary agreed to the modification of contract requiring this written text, that she was in no obligation to write anything to them.

On 9-8-22, Mary and her husband flew from Georgia to NYC for Mary to attend this event that was promised by SU. Upon arriving at the airport, she received a text from SU, that because she did not confirm anything in writing that they unilaterally requested & never agreed to by Mary, that Mary has forfeited her title and therefore was taken out of the fashion show and photoshoot.

Contracts can be verbal and if someone is going to modify a contract after a verbal contract has already been relied on by the parties, BOTH parties must be in agreement. Thus, SU had no right to impose this requirement on Mary and take back what Mary had paid for and had been promised.

Mary’s attorney will be reaching out to SU to demand reimbursement of costs put out for the trip and if SU does not refund her, she will be filing a lawsuit against SU, along with another women who lost several thousand dollars based on deceptive advertising.

Representatives from Supermodels Unlimited Threatened Model Who Paid Over $4000 Based on Inaccurate Information Provided by SU

9-6-22

Mary Baldwin, representative of Supermodels Unlimited (SU) called Berta Moniz today after discovering Berta Moniz gave a text she received from SU to a 3rd to investigate. Berta was smart and made sure she had 2 witnesses present during her phone encounter with Mary Baldwin.

When Berta directly questioned Mary Baldwin on whether SU was truly partnering with GUESS, according to Mary Baldwin’s text she sent Berta to entice Berta to pay, Mary Baldwin refused to give Berta an answer and instead deviated from the question.

When Berta Moniz questioned Mary Baldwin on whether SU was truly a part of NYFW, Mary Baldwin stated “yes”, however through investigation there has been nothing provided proving that SU was actually part of NYFW, SU is not even listed on NYFWs itinerary.

During this phone encounter, Mary Baldwin threatened Berta Moniz that she would have Berta escorted away from the event if Berta questioned anything or the legitimacy of the event.

Berta’s attorney sent a legal letter to SU demanding a refund and has been told to wait 10 days until their attorney can respond to this request