Social Media Influencer Dana Chanel Accused of Ripping Off Black Small Business Owners

Authorities in Pennsylvania have filed a lawsuit against Instagram influencer Dana Chanel claiming she used her social media platform to promote products and services that ripped off consumers, mainly Black small business owners.

Chanel, whose real name is Casey Olivera, has close to 800,000 Instagram followers and is the founder of Curl Bible, a hair and skincare brand, as well as Sprinkle of Jesus, a Christian mobile app that she claims is the largest online ministry in the world with 5 million users.

Chanel is known for sharing funny Reels about running businesses, posts promoting her products, as well as content about her family.

“Dana Chanel built a following online by presenting herself as a black woman-owned small business success story,” Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro said in a press release Thursday. “She advertised the products of her companies as a way for other black small business owners to achieve what she did. Then, she ripped off the same community she claimed to care about.”

The lawsuit, which is suing Chanel, includes Chanel’s other companies, Credit Exterminators (which was rebranded as Earn Company), the company helping consumers improve bad credit, and Alakazam, which focuses on helping small business owners create their own mobile app.

According to the suit, both companies are co-owned and operated by Chanel and some of her family members. Her sister, Cassandra April Olivera, and father, Nakia Rattray, are also listed as defendants in the case.

According to the lawsuit, officials in Pennsylvania began their investigating after receiving multiple complaints from customers who said they either didn’t receive the goods and services they had paid for or that the businesses misled them, Buzzfeed reported.

Multiple people reported to officials that Credit Exterminators/Earn Company offered a $300 per month “VIP Package” service plan to help people raise their credit score and allegedly promised an appealing “we do it for you” gimmick.

Customers then were told to sign a form that let the company off the hook on actually providing the services it advertised, such as phone support or a designated personal account finance specialist.

One client paid a $1,807 deposit to the credit score company with hopes of repairing her credit and getting related consulting and coaching, the lawsuit says. However, when she tried to reach the company to set up these services, she received no response, and her request for a full refund was refused.

Apparently, the credit score company falsely claimed that it had submitted disputes to credit reporting agencies, but people discovered these agencies had no record of the disputes.

Regulators also accused Chanel’s mobile app company, Alakazam, of charging customers for a “business marketing manual” they had no knowledge of or desire to purchase or ever receive.

That company was advertised to small business owners who wanted to have their own apps promote their products while also growing a community, in which Chanel used Sprinkle of Jesus, a company that offers to consult to Christian entrepreneurs and to its devotional content, to help market it.

Chanel also used her Instagram to promote online seminars that were hosted by Rattray or other company representatives, the lawsuit says.

“Some consumers who paid monthly hosting fees to Alakazam never received a completed mobile app from the company or received a mobile app that lacked a minimum level of functionality necessary to give the product any value to the consumer,” the lawsuit says.

One small business owner was under the impression that Alakazam would do the development work to create an app for her. She forked over $950 for the app development, but instead, the money went towards a business marketing manual, the suit says, and a $250 monthly hosting fee that was due before the app was complete.

The attorney general’s office accuses Chanel of violating Pennsylvania’s Consumer Protection Law on five counts, including failing to deliver goods and services promised, misleading consumers, violating the state credit services law, and failing to register a fictitious company name with the state.

“It’s hard enough these days for workers in Philadelphia,” Shapiro said in a statement. “We can’t have bad actors breaking the law and making it even harder for folks to resolve their bad credit or keep their small businesses afloat.”