Two Arizona small-business owners say they each paid $800 for advertising in a Facebook group and did not receive the exposure they expected or a refund. Rachel Hunter, who owns Cactus Crew, a junk removal and thrift store business, and Erin Alward, owner of Time Taylored Virtual Assistant, identify John Doering as the person who took their payments. Their accounts and Doering’s responses were reported by Arizona’s Family.
Doering administers Scottsdale Living, a Valley Facebook group with more than 74,000 members where small businesses post ads for their services, according to Arizona's Family. The report says the offer was $800 upfront for weekly advertisement posts over six months, with a full refund promised to customers who posted weekly and were unhappy with the results.
Two Business Owners, Two Versions of Events
Hunter says she agreed to the advertising arrangement in July 2025 after being told she would be one of only ten businesses advertising in the group and the only junk-removal company with exclusive posting rights. She says she later saw other junk-removal businesses posting there. Alward says some posts in groups operated by Doering were not approved. Doering told Arizona’s Family that all of Alward’s posts had been approved and published; the report did not resolve the disagreement.
Alward says she requested a refund multiple times. Arizona’s Family reported that Doering wrote to her on Facebook Messenger, “I'll get this return processed.” Alward says no follow-up came despite months of attempts to reach him. She tried to take him to small claims court but gave up after certified mail to him was returned undelivered.
Certified Letters, Complaints, and a Libel Lawsuit
Hunter says she contacted police, filed complaints with federal agencies and sent Doering a certified letter in April that went unanswered. After she posted TikTok videos criticizing him, Doering sued her for libel. Arizona’s Family reported that court documents show Doering is representing himself in the case.
In comments to Arizona’s Family, Doering characterized his dispute with Hunter as a business disagreement, saying, “It's a business dispute, and I would hope to handle it like a business dispute.” He said he could repay Hunter if she agreed to stop making statements about him, and denied being a scam artist. He attributed some of his difficulties to a separation, real estate partnerships and a bankruptcy, and said he created Scottsdale Living nearly a decade ago to connect the community.
Conflicting Accounts Over Alward's Payment
The accounts about Alward’s payment and posts also differ. Doering told Arizona’s Family he was unsure who Alward was and sent a screen recording that he said showed no Venmo or Facebook Messenger interactions between them. Alward provided the station with evidence of payment and communications with Doering, according to its report. Doering also said Facebook had been deleting his messages. The report said neither woman had been repaid as of its publication.
State Office Confirms a Referral
Arizona’s Family reported that the Arizona Attorney General’s Office received a complaint about potential fraud related to Doering’s activities and referred it to another agency for investigation. The office also recommended that potential victims report their experiences to local law enforcement for review. Doering told the station the Attorney General’s Office had not contacted him directly.
Arizona law identifies deception, false promises, misrepresentation and the intentional concealment of material facts connected to the sale or advertisement of merchandise as unlawful practices under A.R.S. § 44-1522. The statute does not determine whether the conduct alleged by Hunter and Alward violates the law. No outcome has been reported in the libel case or any agency review; both women say they remain out $800 each.
What complaints and platform rules can establish
The Arizona Attorney General’s Office says that if it takes a consumer complaint, it will try to resolve the dispute through informal dispute resolution, but it cannot guarantee a resolution. A complaint or referral therefore is not a finding about the Scottsdale allegations or assurance of repayment. Separately, Meta’s commercial-practices policy lists failure to deliver a purchased product or service after payment as prohibited; the policy does not establish that Meta reviewed this dispute or found a violation. For small-claims documents, Maricopa County Justice Courts’ guide describes certified mail and other methods permitted under Arizona Rules of Small Claims Procedure, Rule 7, including service by a process server. That general guidance does not establish what happened in Alward’s case.
