Tag Archives: consumer
West Virginia AG Settles With Debt Collectors
February 23rd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.
According to the State Journal , West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw has reached settlements with three companies that used very different approaches to collect debts that were often disputed, sometimes non-existent, and in the case of one company, so old that the time to sue had expired. The three companies – Allied Interstate of Minneapolis, Minn; Jefferson Capital Systems of St. Cloud, Minn; and Wilhelm, West, Kacey & Associates (WWKA), of Canton, Ga. – promised to conform their practices with state and federal debt collection laws in the future. Collectively, they agreed to make restitution, cash refunds, and to cancel debts totaling $404,091.48 for 446 West Virginia consumers. Anyone wishing to file a complaint about a consumer matter or to alert the Attorney General about unfair or deceptive practices may do so by calling the Consumer Protection Hot Line, 800-368-8808. Read the full story on the State Journal .
Go here to see the original:
West Virginia AG Settles With Debt Collectors
Widespread Data Breaches Uncovered on P2P File Sharing Networks
February 22nd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
Yet another reason to not install P2P file sharing software on a computer that contains your personal information. FTC Warns of Improper Release of Sensitive Consumer Data on P2P File-Sharing Networks The Federal Trade Commission has notified almost 100 organizations that personal information, including sensitive data about customers and/or employees, has been shared from the organizations’ computer networks and is available on peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing networks to any users of those networks, who could use it to commit identity theft or fraud. The agency also has opened non-public investigations of other companies whose customer or employee information has been exposed on P2P networks. To help businesses manage the security risks presented by file-sharing software, the FTC is releasing new education materials that present the risks and recommend ways to manage them. Peer-to-peer technology can be used in many ways, such as to play games, make online telephone calls, and, through P2P file-sharing software, share music, video, and documents. But when P2P file-sharing software is not configured properly, files not intended for sharing may be accessible to anyone on the P2P network. “Unfortunately, companies and institutions of all sizes are vulnerable to serious P2P-related breaches, placing consumers’ sensitive information at risk. For example, we found health-related information, financial records, and drivers’ license and social security numbers–the kind of information that could lead to identity theft,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “Companies should take a hard look at their systems to ensure that there are no unauthorized P2P file-sharing programs and that authorized programs are properly configured and secure. Just as important, companies that distribute P2P programs, for their part, should ensure that their software design does not contribute to inadvertent file sharing.” As the nation’s consumer protection agency, the FTC enforces laws that require companies in various industries to take reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect sensitive personal information, including the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act. Failure to prevent such information from being shared to a P2P network may violate such laws. Information about the FTC’s privacy and data security enforcement actions can be found at www.ftc.gov/privacy/privacyinitiatives/ promises_enf.html . The notices went to both private and public entities, including schools and local governments, and the entities contacted ranged in size from businesses with as few as eight employees to publicly held corporations employing tens of thousands. In the notification letters, the FTC urged the entities to review their security practices and, if appropriate, the practices of contractors and vendors, to ensure that they are reasonable, appropriate, and in compliance with the law. The letters state, “It is your responsibility to protect such information from unauthorized access, including taking steps to control the use of P2P software on your own networks and those of your service providers.” The FTC also recommended that the entities identify affected customers and employees and consider whether to notify them that their information is available on P2P networks. Many states and federal regulatory agencies have laws or guidelines about businesses’ notification responsibilities in these circumstances. Samples of the notification letters can be found at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/02/100222sampleletter-a.pdf , http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/02/100222sampleletter-b.pdf , http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/02/100222sampleletter-c.pdf . The fact that a company received a letter does not mean that the company necessarily violated any law enforced by the Commission. Letters went to companies under FTC jurisdiction, as well as entities such as banks and public agencies over which the agency does not have jurisdiction. The FTC appreciates the assistance of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Office of Comptroller of the Currency. The new business education brochure – titled Peer-to-Peer File Sharing: A Guide for Business – is designed to assist businesses and others as they consider whether to allow file-sharing technologies on their networks, and explain how to safeguard sensitive information on their systems, and other security recommendations. This information is available at www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/idtheft/bus46.shtm . Tips for consumers about computer security and P2P can be found at www.onguardonline.gov/topics/p2p-security.aspx . The Federal Trade Commission works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click http://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm .
Visit link:
Widespread Data Breaches Uncovered on P2P File Sharing Networks
Allen Harkleroad WANTED by the Debt Collection Industry and ACA International for Fighting Back
February 10th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.
Popular Searches
The FCC Considers Ramping Up Crusade Against “Robo Callers”
February 8th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) already has regulations concerning the use of automated (predictive) dialers to cellular phone numbers. The FCC has proposed several new regulations that would curtail the use of automated pre-recorded message dialers and automated dialing systems. If adopted, the changes to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act would limit the use of prerecorded calls and automatic telephone dialing systems. The stricter guidelines proposed by the FCC on Jan. 20 have debt-collection companies in an uproar. Right now, non-sellers can make “autodialed” or prerecorded calls to wireless numbers. The ARM or “account receivable management” professionals claim they had consumers’ “prior express consent” for those calls when the customer provided a cell phone number on a credit application. Debt collectors have expressed outrage about the plan on insider Web sites. A few suggested suing debtors as a way to get even for the new restrictions . Some blamed voting in liberal Democrats when Republicans have been “traditionally better for the ARM (Accounts Receivable Management) industry.” ~ source Delco Times If adopted debt collectors are suggesting they will sue consumers in retribution if the new guidelines are approved, even though it is the US Government taking the action. This is exactly why I (Allen Harkleroad) wrote the book, “ Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors ”. I say let them sue and then the consumer can beat them in court. It is a sad fact that only one out of ten consumers respond to a debt lawsuit, and 90 percent (or more) the debt collector had not physical proof that a debt is owed. It is time for the bad lawsuits to go away, consumers must fight for their rights.
Original post:
The FCC Considers Ramping Up Crusade Against “Robo Callers”
Federal Trade Commission Returns $1.6 Million to Consumers Scammed by Bogus Debt Collector
February 5th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
The FTC will distribute $1.6 million to thousands of consumers who were scammed into paying money they did not owe by con artists who threatened, harassed and lied to them. In 2003, the FTC sued three companies, operating under the name National Check Control, charging them with harassing and abusing consumers, falsely threatening criminal prosecution, illegally communicating with third parties, collecting amounts that were not due, and other violations of federal laws. In 2005, the court ordered a permanent halt to their operations and ordered them to pay redress to the consumers they had bilked. The defendants, including Check Investors, Inc., Check Enforcement, Inc., Jaredco, Inc., the companies’ owner, Barry Sussman, and their corporate counsel, Charles Hutchins, unsuccessfully appealed the case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. On February 7, 2008, one day after the appeals court refused to reconsider his appeal, Sussman removed from a bank safe deposit box coins valued at $335,000 that the federal court had ordered him to turn over to the FTC for consumer redress. A federal jury convicted him of two felony counts – theft of government property and obstruction of justice. In October 2009, he was sentenced to 41 months in federal prison and is currently serving his sentence. The FTC recovered a total of $1.6 million for consumer redress. The funds will be distributed to 24,916 consumers who each lost $100 or more as the result of the defendants’ illegal actions. The consumers have been identified based on records obtained in the case. Consumers will begin to receive checks this month. The FTC received substantial assistance in this case from the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, the United States Postal Inspection Service, and the Office of the New Jersey Attorney General. The Federal Trade Commission works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click http://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm .
Visit link:
Federal Trade Commission Returns $1.6 Million to Consumers Scammed by Bogus Debt Collector
FTC Warns 78 Retailers, Including Wal-Mart, Target, and Kmart, to Stop Labeling and Advertising Rayon Textile Products as "Bamboo"
February 3rd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
Seventy-eight companies nationwide have received Federal Trade Commission letters warning that they may be breaking the law by selling clothing and other textile products that are labeled and advertised as “bamboo,” but actually are made of manufactured rayon fiber. The letters, which the agency’s staff sent last week, make the retailers aware of the FTC’s concerns about possible mislabeling of rayon products as “bamboo,” so the companies can take corrective steps to avoid Commission action. “We need to make sure companies use proper labeling and advertising in their efforts to appeal to environmentally conscious consumers,” said David C. Vladeck, Director of the agency’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Rayon is rayon, even if bamboo has been used somewhere along the line in the manufacturing process.” The FTC sued several companies last year for allegedly selling products labeled or advertised as “bamboo” that in reality were made of rayon. Rayon is a man-made fiber created from the cellulose found in plants and trees and processed with harsh chemicals that release hazardous air pollution. Any plant or tree – including bamboo – could be used as the cellulose source, but the fiber that is created is rayon. “While we have seen action by some retailers to correct mislabeled clothing and textile products, our hope is that these warning letters will serve as a wake-up call to all companies, regardless of their size,” Vladeck said. The FTC staff letter outlines the requirements for proper labeling and advertising of textile products derived from bamboo. The letter states, “Rayon, even if manufactured using cellulose from bamboo, must be described using an appropriate term recognized under the FTC’s Textile Rules. . . . Failing to properly label and advertise textiles misleads consumers and runs afoul of both the Textile Rules and the FTC Act.” In the letter, the FTC tells the companies they should review the labeling and advertising for the textile products they are selling and remove or correct any misleading bamboo references. Along with the warning letters, the agency sent each company a synopsis of FTC decisions finding that the failure to use proper fiber names in textile labeling and advertising was deceptive and violated the FTC Act. Under the Act, the FTC can seek civil penalties of up to $16,000 per violation against any company that receives this information but fails to correct its advertising and labeling. A complete list of the companies sent warning letters can be found on the FTC’s Web site and as a link to this press release. They include small and large retailers, with both online and brick-and-mortar stores, and firms selling textile products labeled or advertised as “bamboo” that may be made of rayon. The more commonly known retailers include: Amazon.com, Barney’s New York, Bed Bath & Beyond, BJ’s Wholesale Club, Bloomingdale’s, Costco Wholesale, Garnet Hill, Gold Toe, Hanes, Isotoner, JC Penney, Jockey, Kmart, Kohl’s, Land’s End, Macy’s, Maidenform, Nordstrom, Overstock.com, QVC, REI, Saks Fifth Avenue, Sears, Shop NBC, Spiegel, Sports Authority, Target, The Gap, The Great Indoors, Tommy Bahama, Toys R’ Us, Wal-Mart, and Zappos.com . Recent Enforcement Actions. Today’s announcement comes on the heels of four FTC enforcement actions brought against companies selling rayon products that were misleadingly labeled and advertised. According to the Commission’s complaints, filed in August 2009, the companies falsely claimed that their rayon clothing and other textile products were “bamboo fiber,” marketing them using names such as “ecoKashmere,” “Pure Bamboo,” “Bamboo Comfort,” and “BambooBaby.” The complaints also challenged a number of other deceptive “green” claims, including that the products retained the bamboo plant’s antimicrobial properties, were made using environmentally friendly manufacturing processes, and are biodegradable. The four companies have settled the FTC’s charges and agreed to modify their labels to ensure their claims are not misleading or deceptive. (One of the cases still needs final FTC approval.) Press releases announcing the complaints and related settlements can be found at: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/12/dynabamboo.shtm and http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/bamboosa.shtm , respectively. Business and Consumer Information. The FTC has a publication designed to help businesses that sell clothing and textile products that are labeled as bamboo to market their products in ways that are truthful, non-deceptive, and in compliance with the law. “Avoid Bamboo-zling Your Customers” can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/bamboo . The FTC also has an alert entitled “Have You Been Bamboozled by Bamboo Fabrics?” that provides useful information for consumers shopping for bamboo-based fabrics. It also can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/bamboo . The Commission vote to publicly disclose the warning letters was 4-0. Copies of the letters and a complete list of companies that received them can be found on the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov/bamboo and as a link to this press release. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm .
Read the rest here:
FTC Warns 78 Retailers, Including Wal-Mart, Target, and Kmart, to Stop Labeling and Advertising Rayon Textile Products as "Bamboo"
When Debt Collection Lawyers Pull Credit Reports and Break the law – FCRA
February 3rd, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
If you are being sued by a debt collection law firm it would be prudent to pull all three of your credit reports (Experian, Equifax and TransUnion). Chances are that the law firm pulled your credit report and this is a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Below is a photo of my credit reporting showing Macey Wilensky, Kessler and Hennings having pulled my credit report on three occasions 6/24/2008, 7/15/2008 and 7/31/2008, shortly after that I received a summons naming American Express Centurion Bank as Plaintiff and Macey, Wilensky as the filing law firm. According to the FCRA litigation is not a permissible use of a consumers credit report as it is not a business to consumer transaction.
I’m about to Sue Worldwide Asset Purchasing II LLC, Hollander Law Offices LLC and Leading Edge Recovery Solutions. They are now Co-Defendants
February 2nd, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.
These jokers take an alleged $12,000.00 debt, turn it into a $15,000.00 debt then in short order turn it into a $17,000.00 debt. Time to start suing. Evidently Worldwide Asset Purchasing II, LLC (State of Nevada) thinks I owe them. As far as I know I have never had a MBNA account. I did receive a long time ago something stating I owed $12,000.00 to MBNA. May be I do and maybe I don’t. Anyway the junk debt buyer (pays pennies on the dollar for debts), turned the alleged debt over to Hollander Law Offices (a foreign corporation in Georgia) claimed that I owed $15,456.30. Hollander seemed to enjoy leaving voice mail at my employers office that they are debt collectors, we aren’t talking once but many times. I never gave anyone permission to contact my employer about a debt. Can you say multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)? Hollander Law Offices, LLC sent me a letter on 9/12/2009 stating that I owed $15,460.30 (remember the date) I of course ignored the empty legal threats of Hollander Law Offices, LLC. And so I should have. On January 25, 2010 I receive a letter from Leading Edge Recovery Solutions, stating that they represented Worldwide Asset Purchasing II, LLC. for the amount of $17,007.15. Somehow in the period of about 5 months the alleged amount owed jumped $1,541.85. That’s a lot of interest of fees. Bear with me and I will explain all of the violations of the FDCAP this entails.
Popular Searches
Judge Rules that Ellis v. Solomon and Solomon Violated the FDCPA by Suing Before During 30 Day Debt Validation Period
January 28th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.
I just got this via email. Ellis v. Solomon & Solomon P.C, Julie Farina, and Douglas Fisher 09-1247-cv United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit on 01/13/10 Affirmed the verdict of the district court which held that the defendants violated the FDCPA by serving Ellis with a summons and complaint during the FDCPA thirty-day validation period, without explaining that commencement of the lawsuit did not affect the rights set forth in the validation notice. We agree, and hold that service of process during the validation period must , at a minimum, be preceded or accompanied by notice to the consumer clarifying that the lawsuit does not in any alter the information contained in the validation notice. The National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys filed a amicus brief in support of the collection lawyers but it didn’t do any good. Judge said there is real potential for confusion when a consumer is served with a lawsuit during the validation period. Without some explanation to the consumer of the relationship between the suit and the provisions in the notice it may well appear to the least sophisticated consumer that being taken to court trumps any other out of court rights she had. PDF version of the decision
Judge Rules that Ellis v. Solomon & Solomon Violated the FDCPA by Suing Before During 30 Day Debt Validation Period
January 28th, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.
I just got this via email. Ellis v. Solomon & Solomon P.C, Julie Farina, and Douglas Fisher 09-1247-cv United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit on 01/13/10 Affirmed the verdict of the district court which held that the defendants violated the FDCPA by serving Ellis with a summons and complaint during the FDCPA thirty-day validation period, without explaining that commencement of the lawsuit did not affect the rights set forth in the validation notice. We agree, and hold that service of process during the validation period must , at a minimum, be preceded or accompanied by notice to the consumer clarifying that the lawsuit does not in any alter the information contained in the validation notice. The National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys filed a amicus brief in support of the collection lawyers but it didn’t do any good. Judge said there is real potential for confusion when a consumer is served with a lawsuit during the validation period. Without some explanation to the consumer of the relationship between the suit and the provisions in the notice it may well appear to the least sophisticated consumer that being taken to court trumps any other out of court rights she had. PDF version of the decision
Continued here:
Judge Rules that Ellis v. Solomon & Solomon Violated the FDCPA by Suing Before During 30 Day Debt Validation Period
Popular Searches
Mortgage Broker Who Dumped Consumer Records Settles FTC Charges
January 20th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
A mortgage broker who discarded consumers’ personal financial records in a publicly- accessible dumpster paid a $35,000 civil penalty to settle Federal Trade Commission charges. According to an FTC complaint filed in December 2008, the defendant improperly disposed of about 40 boxes of sensitive consumer records collected by companies he had owned, including tax returns, mortgage applications, bank statements, photocopies of credit cards and drivers’ licenses, and at least 230 credit reports. In addition, two mortgage brokerage companies he previously owned failed to provide reasonable and appropriate security for sensitive consumer information, despite promising they would do so.
Marketers of Unproven Weight-Loss Products Bronson Partners LLC Ordered to Pay Nearly $2 Million
January 11th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
Court Rules in Favor of FTC in Case of Diet Tea and Bio-Slim Patch A federal district court has ordered the marketers of an herbal tea and a diet patch to pay nearly $2 million to the Federal Trade Commission for making deceptive claims that both products would allow users to lose weight quickly without diet or exercise. For nearly two years before the FTC complaint was filed, Bronson Partners, LLC and its officer, Martin Howard, marketed Chinese Diet Tea, telling consumers they could lose as much as six pounds a week by drinking one cup of the green tea after each meal to “neutralize the absorption of fattening foods.” Advertising in national magazines such as USA Weekend and Clipper Magazine, the marketers charged $24.95 plus shipping and handling for a month’s supply. Also during this time, the marketers sold the Bio-Slim Patch, a diet patch that contained extracts from the fucus, garcinia, and guarana plants. Instructing consumers to wear the patches 24 hours a day for at least three months, the marketers claimed that “repulsive, excess ugly fatty tissue will disappear at a spectacular rate due to the combination and synergy of these three natural ingredients.” The marketers advertised the patch in national magazines and in a company catalog, and consumers paid $24.95 plus shipping and handling for a month’s supply. In addition to ordering the nearly $2 million payment, citing “obvious and widespread” violations of the FTC Act, Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the FTC’s request to prohibit the defendants from selling or advertising any weight-loss products. “Future violations of a similar nature would surely result in financial harm to consumers, and possible physical harm if consumers engage in risky weight-loss techniques in reliance on (the) defendants’ misleading representations,” the judge wrote in his December 2009 ruling and order. He also ordered the defendants to help the FTC identify consumer victims who lost money on the products, so that restitution can be made. The FTC filed its complaint against Bronson Partners, LLC and Martin Howard as part of the “Big Fat Lie” law enforcement sweep in November 2004. The sweep targeted marketers of bogus weight-loss products, such as pills, powders, gels, green teas, and diet patches. In July 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the FTC’s request for summary judgment against Howard and Bronson Partners, LLC – also doing business as New England Diet Center and Bronson Day Spa. Copies of the November 2004 complaint and the December 2009 ruling and order are available on the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .
Read this article:
Marketers of Unproven Weight-Loss Products Bronson Partners LLC Ordered to Pay Nearly $2 Million
Popular Searches
Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors Book Now Available in Print Edition
January 9th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.
Allen Harkleroad’s latest book, “Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors” is now available in print. Synopsis Beat Greedy Lawsuit Filing Debt Collectors At Their Own Game. Learn to Fight Debt Collection Lawsuits and WIN! Have you been sued by a debt collector or law firm over a debt?
NOW AVAILABLE – New Book – Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors
December 31st, 2009. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.
I Allen Harkleroad, have released a new book titled “Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors”. This is my second consumer book and I believe is a much needed resource for consumers having financial difficulties. To purchase or for more information go to www.BeatDebtCollectors.com . What you will read in my book is based on own personal experiences and what I learned from dealing with debt collector lawsuits over the last couple of years. For the record I have been sued so many times over the last couple of years that I have literally lost count. I can tell you one thing with one hundred percent certainty; I win in court and stick it to sue happy debt collectors, attorneys and law firms. It took a while to learn out how to how to fight a debt lawsuit, represent myself in court and win. Most consumers have no idea how to deal with debt lawsuits and most cannot afford to be represented by an attorney. This is why I wrote this book. In this book I will cover original creditor lawsuits and junk debt buyer lawsuits. Both are very similar in the way that you will deal with them. I will also cover how to keep debt collectors off your back before any lawsuits are filed. I also cover how and when to sue a debt collector for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). My ultimate goal is to show you how to overwhelm the opposing attorney and to show them that the burden of proving the debt is going to be an arduous, long, tiring and expensive (for them) journey. Most attorneys will bailout (voluntary dismissal) once they see that they have to spend time and money to prove the case. I am not an “easy money target” and after you read my book neither will you. My goal when responding to either an original creditor or junk debt buyer lawsuits is to overwhelm the opposing attorney and forcing the burden of proof on them. As I said earlier my debt collector attorneys and law firms are looking for easy money (default judgments). I turn the tables and show them that they must actually work to get a judgment. Did you know in upwards of ninety-percent (90%) of credit card debt lawsuits that are filed the attorney has insufficient proof that you owe the debt? The reason is that the proper documentation was lost or never transferred to the law firm or the debt buyer. Did you know that one in ten (1 in 10) consumers served with a debt lawsuit will never respond or show up (for whatever reason). In some cases the consumer was never made aware of the lawsuit or possibly it could be because of embarrassment or fear. You’ll see results like this TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword – written by Chris Gleason a prominent consumer protection attorney Acknowledgements Introduction Chapter One – Important Things You May Not Know About Debt Lawsuits Chapter Two – Defending Yourself (Pro Se) Is Mostly Paperwork Chapter Three – Original Creditor Lawsuits Answering the Complaint and Affirmative Defenses – Deny Everything Example Answer and Affirmative Defenses Explanations of the Affirmative Defenses and Other Affirmative Defenses Filing a Motion to Dismiss and Sworn Denials Using the Federal Truth in Lending Act to Your Advantage Breach of Contract not Suit on Account The Motion to Dismiss and Sworn Denial Bombshell Motion to Strike Affidavit of Debt or Affidavit of Account Discovery – Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, Request for Admissions Responses to Plaintiff’s Discovery Chapter Four- Debt Buyer (junk debt collectors) Lawsuits Answering the Complaint and Affirmative Defenses – Deny Everything Explanations of the Affirmative Defenses and Other Affirmative Defenses The Motion to Dismiss and Sworn Denial Bombshell Motion to Strike Affidavit of Debt or Affidavit of Account Discovery – Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, Request for Admissions Chapter Five – Dealing with Debt Collectors Before They Sue You The Never and Always Tips for Dealing with Debt Collectors How to Pay Collection Agencies or Creditors How to Sue Debt Collectors for Violations of the FDCPA Or FCRA Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Violations Whether you owe a debt or not, this book will give you tools that you can use to get these lawyers off of your back. An attorney friend of mine once told me, “This is America so make them prove you owe them, if they can’t you win”. In as many as ninety percent (90%) of credit card debt lawsuits, the lawyers filing the suits don’t have the documentation to prove that you owe the debt. This book also shows you how and what to file in court to make them back off. REMEMBER: Credit card lawsuits are civil lawsuits. They CANNOT put you in jail even if you lose. So if you are worried or scared, DON’T BE. Most of these sorts of lawsuits are scare tactics by debt collectors (and debt collection law firms) to scare you (to keep you from answering or responding). When they see that they must work for the money, often times they’ll go away. To purchase or for more information go to www.BeatDebtCollectors.com .
See the original post:
NOW AVAILABLE – New Book – Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors
New Book – Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors
December 28th, 2009. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.
I (Allen Harkleroad) am about to release a new book titled “Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors”. This is my second consumer book and I believe is a much needed resource for consumers having financial difficulties. What you will read in my book is based on own personal experiences and what I learned from dealing with debt collector lawsuits over the last couple of years. For the record I have been sued so many times over the last couple of years that I have literally lost count. I can tell you one thing with one hundred percent certainty; I win in court and stick it to sue happy debt collectors, attorneys and law firms. It took a while to learn out how to represent myself in court and win against lawsuit happy debt collection law firms and debt collection companies. Most consumers have no idea how to deal with debt lawsuits and most cannot afford to be represented by an attorney. This is why I wrote this book. In this book I will cover original creditor lawsuits and junk debt buyer lawsuits. Both are very similar in the way that you will deal with them. I will also cover how to keep debt collectors off your back before any lawsuits are filed. I also cover how and when to sue a debt collector for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). My ultimate goal is to show you how to overwhelm the opposing attorney and to show them that the burden of proving the debt is going to be an arduous, long, tiring and expensive (for them) journey. Most attorneys will bailout (voluntary dismissal) once they see that they
Popular Searches
Online scams dominate BBB branch’s Top 10 list – CBC.ca
December 14th, 2009. Published under Political Scams, Scams. No Comments.
CBC.ca Online scams dominate BBB branch's Top 10 list CBC.ca “Some of the scams are just a bit of misleading advertising. A lot of the time, the consumer's credit card information is going from one company that they … and more
FTC Announces New Enforcement Actions In Continuing Crackdown On Mortgage Relief Services Scams
September 17th, 2009. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
The Federal Trade Commission today announced two new law enforcement actions in a continuing crackdown on mortgage foreclosure rescue and loan modification scams, bringing to 22 the number of these cases the Commission has filed since the housing crisis began. The FTC also announced developments in similar pending mortgage-related actions. “Today’s challenging economy presents an opportunity for con artists who prey upon financially distressed consumers. The Federal Trade Commission and our state and federal partners will continue to bring law enforcement actions to stop this insidious fraud,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said. “If you’re worried about keeping your home, avoid any company that asks for a large fee in advance, guarantees that they’ll stop a foreclosure or modify a loan, or tells you to stop paying your mortgage company and to pay them instead.” The FTC’s announcement accompanied a meeting of federal and state officials including Chairman Leibowitz, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Attorney General Eric Holder, Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, and the state attorneys general from eleven states (Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island and Washington). These federal and state officials met in Washington, D.C., to discuss emerging trends and ongoing efforts against fraud in the mortgage marketplace. In addition to law enforcement, the FTC discussed its ongoing rulemaking proceeding involving mortgage modification services and continuing efforts to educate consumers about avoiding mortgage-related scams. In today’s two new announced FTC actions, the defendants allegedly falsely claimed that they would obtain a mortgage modification in virtually all cases. According to the FTC’s complaints, after charging homeowners large up-front fees, the defendants often did little or nothing to help them renegotiate their mortgages or stop foreclosure. The FTC seeks to stop the defendants’ deceptive claims and make them forfeit their ill-gotten gains. Nations Housing Modification Center and its principals allegedly violated the FTC Act and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule by misrepresenting themselves as a federal government agency or affiliate and falsely claiming that, in return for a $3,000 fee – half due up-front and half due two weeks later – they would obtain mortgage modifications that would make consumers’ loan payments substantially more affordable in virtually every instance. According to the FTC, the defendants also falsely claimed a 90 percent success rate, that only selected customers meeting certain qualifications were offered a loan, and that they had attorneys and forensic accountants on staff. In fact, the FTC alleges that very few homeowners got modifications, the defendants accepted advance fees for services from all applicants, and they had neither lawyers nor accountants on staff. According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants solicited consumers by mail designed to look as if it came from a federal government agency, deceptively stating, “a bill has been passed by Congress” that “allows the Nations Housing Modification Center to provide relief for homeowners that are delinquent on their mortgage through the Nations Home Affordable Modification Program.” The defendants also allegedly made misleading statements on their Web site and with consumers who called their toll-free number. The complaint alleges that consumers were misled because the defendants’ promotion is very similar to the real government “Making Home Affordable” program that provides free mortgage loan assistance. The defendants are Federal Housing Modification Department, Inc., doing business as Nations Housing Modification Center and Loan Modification Reform Association, and Michael A. Trap, Glenn S. Rosofsky, and Bryan P. Rosenberg. The Commission vote to file the complaint was 4-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on September 16, 2009. The FTC appreciates the assistance of the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the office of Jim Freis, Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the office of Bonnie M. Dumanis, District Attorney, County of San Diego, California, in this matter. Infinity Group Services and its president are charged with violating the FTC Act by falsely representing that they would obtain a loan modification in all, or virtually all, instances; that they would give full refunds if they failed to do so; and that they would obtain loan refinancing for an up-front fee of $995. According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants’ radio ads and Web site urged consumers to call a toll-free number. Once consumers called, the defendants’ sales personnel promised that, in return for the up-front fee, the company would help them modify their mortgage loans through the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Hope for Homeowners program. The defendants claimed a high success rate and offered a full refund if they failed. The FTC alleges that the company often failed to obtain loan modifications and either failed to answer or return consumers’ telephone calls or update them about their status. When consumers were able to contact the defendants, they were falsely told that negotiations were proceeding smoothly or that lenders had caused a delay. In many instances, consumers received refunds only after repeatedly complaining to the FTC, the California Attorney General’s Office, or the Better Business Bureau. The FTC’s complaint further alleged that the defendants also offered mortgage loan refinancing for a “flat fee” of $995 but then sought additional fees ranging from $2,000 to $15,000. In other instances, consumers were led to believe that they had closed on their loans but were later told by the defendants that the loan would not be funded. According to the complaint, the defendants’ Web site stated that there were no hidden costs, but a fine-print footnote stated, “Rates, Fees and Terms are subject to change.” The defendants are Infinity Group Services, also doing business as IGS, Hope to Homeowners, ASK IGS, and ASK IGS, Inc., and the company’s president, Kahram Zamani. The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint was 4-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, on August 26, 2009. The FTC also announced developments in four previously filed foreclosure rescue cases: The FTC has obtained a stipulated federal court order barring Lucas Law Center and its principals from misrepresenting their services and charging up-front fees. The defendants allegedly used an attorney to circumvent California prohibitions against receiving a fee before providing any services. In addition to falsely representing that they would obtain mortgage loan modifications, the defendants allegedly told some homeowners to stop paying their mortgage in order to pay the defendants’ fees of up to $3,995. The order announced today bars the defendants’ allegedly deceptive practices, pending a trial, and requires them to disable Web sites offering their services and to note the FTC’s lawsuit and the order on the Web sites. The order also requires domain name registrars to prevent any changes to the defendants’ Internet domain name registrations. The order names a permanent receiver over the corporate defendants, extends an earlier asset freeze, and bars the defendants from filing for bankruptcy without the court’s permission. The FTC ultimately seeks consumer restitution and a permanent bar on the defendants’ deceptive practices. The defendants are LUCASLAWCENTER “INCORPORATED,” Future Financial Services, LLC, Paul Jeffrey Lucas, Christopher Francis Betts, and Frank Sullivan. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, on July 7, 2009. (see July 15, 2009, press release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/loanlies.shtm ) The stipulated order was entered on August 24, 2009. The FTC has obtained a preliminary injunction halting the allegedly deceptive practices of United Credit Adjusters Inc., The Loan Modification Shop, Ltd. , and their principals, and freezing their assets, pending a trial. The Commission recently filed an amended complaint in this matter, adding as defendants The Loan Modification Shop, Ltd. and Casey Lynn Cohen, also known as Casey Lynn Collins, alleging that they and one of the original defendants, Ezra Rishty, misrepresented that they would help consumers obtain a mortgage loan modification or stop foreclosure in all or virtually all instances. The FTC’s original complaint, filed in February 2009, charged seven corporate and three individual defendants with falsely promising to remove negative information from consumers’ credit reports (even information that is accurate and current), charging an up-front fee, and failing to provide written disclosures. (see March 17, 2009, press release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/03/unitedcredit.shtm .) The original defendants are United Credit Adjusters, Inc., doing business as United Credit Adjustors and UCA; United Credit Adjustors, Inc., d/b/a United Credit Adjusters and UCA; United Counseling Association, Inc., d/b/a UCA; Bankruptcy Masters Corp., National Bankruptcy Services Corp., Federal Debt Solutions, Ltd., United Money Tree, Inc., and Ahron E. Henoch, Ezra Rishty, and Gerald Serino, also known as Jerry Serino. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the amended complaint was 4-0. The amended complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on August 4, 2009. The court entered a preliminary injunction as to all of the defendants on September 1, 2009. The FTC has obtained preliminary injunctions halting the allegedly deceptive practices of Loss Mitigation Services and its principals, pending a trial. Primarily through direct mail solicitation, the defendants allegedly targeted consumers whose mortgage payments have increased, who have made late payments, and whose homes were in foreclosure. They charged up to $5,500 in advance and promised that a loan modification was assured or virtually assured if consumers hired them. The defendants also misrepresented that they were a department of, or affiliated with, the consumer’s lender or mortgage servicer. In many cases, they failed to obtain loan modifications for consumers, some of whom lost their homes while waiting for the promised results. The defendants are Loss Mitigation Services, Inc., Synergy Financial Management Corporation, doing business as Direct Lender, and Dean Shafer, Bernadette Perry, and Tony Perry. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 13, 2009. (see July 15, 2009, press release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/loanlies.shtm ) The litigated preliminary injunction as to the corporate defendants and the stipulated preliminary injunction as to the individual defendants were filed on August 19, 2009. The FTC has filed an amended complaint in its action pending against Hope Now Modifications, LLC, adding as defendants Michael Kwasnik, Esq. and The Law Firm of Kwasnik, Rodio, Kanowitz & Buckley P.C. The original complaint, filed in March 2009, alleged that the defendants misled consumers about their ability to provide mortgage loan modification and foreclosure relief or to provide refunds if they failed to do so, and misrepresented that they were affiliated with, or part of, the HOPE NOW Alliance, a non-profit organization endorsed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The amended complaint also alleges violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the amended complaint was 4-0. The complaint and amended complaint were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 17, 2009, and September 14, 2009, respectively. (see March 24, 2009, press release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/03/newhope.shtm ) The FTC asks homeowners to report foreclosure rescue and mortgage modification scams to FTC.gov or by calling 1-877-FTC-HELP. The FTC makes those complaints available to federal, state, and local law enforcement through the Consumer Sentinel Network. Homeowners in distress can get free help from the Homeowner’s HOPE Hotline 888-995-HOPE (4673), which connects homeowners to HUD-certified housing counselors. In addition to the FTC’s law enforcement efforts, the agency has initiated a rulemaking proceeding to address the proliferation of companies offering mortgage modification services to determine whether new rules could be useful to protect consumers. The FTC also launched new initiatives to educate consumers on avoiding these scams. For example, the Commission has released a video, “ Real People. Real Stories ,” featuring people targeted by foreclosure rescue scammers sharing lessons learned from their experiences. The FTC is distributing the video, and a version in Spanish, to more than 5,000 housing counseling and consumer protection organizations around the country, and posting them at FTC.gov/yourhome and YouTube.com/FTCVideos . The Commission’s mortgage-related resources are available at www.ftc.gov/moneymatters . NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics .
See the original post:
FTC Announces New Enforcement Actions In Continuing Crackdown On Mortgage Relief Services Scams
Phishing Cartoon Drives The Message Home
September 16th, 2009. Published under Scams. No Comments.
The following cartoon from Consumer Reports WebWatch is cute and a little funny too – You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video Fortunately, it also makes some good points about what phishing is and how such crimes are committed. If it has piqued your curiosity then you can learn a whole lot more by reading my recent post : Phishing – What Is It And How Can You Avoid It?
Continued here:
Phishing Cartoon Drives The Message Home
What Everybody Needs To Know About Car Financing Scams
September 10th, 2009. Published under Scams. No Comments.
Ever thought of purchasing a car? Purchasing a vehicle is probably one of the biggest investments any consumer can make today. Unfortunately due to economic circumstances the majority of vehicle buyers today prefer to finance a vehicle, rather than buying it cash. The advantage of financing a vehicle is that one can retain ones cash and improve cash flow. For other users financing a vehicle can be done for tax relief purposes. Another advantage of financing a vehicle, and only in certain instances, is that the consumer could have recourse against the dealership and/or financing institution in the event troubles occur. Vehicle financing scams generally occur only with dealerships offering their own finance to consumers. Well established and reputable financing providers seldom involve in unscrupulous business dealings. HOW CAR FINANCING SCAMS ARE COMMITTED These types of scams are generally committed when a consumer applies for vehicle finance. The dealership will notify the client of approval and request the client to sign the contract. After signing the finance agreement, the client will be informed that a higher interest rate was required to approve the finance. In certain instances the client will also be informed that a higher deposit is required for the finance to come into effect. In other instances clients will also then only be informed that the vehicle needs to be repaid in a much shorter period, along with the higher instalment and deposit. HOW TO AVOID CAR FINANCING SCAMS Always be careful of advertisements offering lower interest rates in vehicle finance. When taking part in these offers you should be aware that: You could be required to pay a large deposit in order to get finance approval You could be required to repay the finance in a very short time You may be required to buy additional options or even sign over a manufacturers? rebate to the dealership You may be required to pay the advertised price of the vehicle, and not be allowed to negotiate a better sale price Be careful of reserve prices placed on the vehicle, which needs to be paid in full at the end of the finance agreement as a lump sum, as with a lease It is highly recommended that you discuss such offers with a person with the required knowledge and experience. By approaching a finance specialist at any dealership you might be informed of any pitfalls you may enter yourself into.
View original post here:
What Everybody Needs To Know About Car Financing Scams
FREE – Consumer Credit DVD Available to Consumers
September 9th, 2009. Published under Scams. No Comments.
The Center for Consumer Law at the University of Houston has produced an educational DVD entitled “Money, Credit and the Law–Know Your Rights.” Funded in part by grants from the Texas Bar Foundation and Money Management International, the video shows consumers how the law protects them from abusive practices. It also explains how knowing your legal rights can resolve some credit problems, and let you work out a reasonable payment plan. The DVD is available to be viewed online at www.peopleslawyer.net , or, will be sent free to anyone who requests one from me, alderman@uh.edu Thanks to the Public Citizen Blog for the info
Read the original here:
FREE – Consumer Credit DVD Available to Consumers
American Express Blue – Raising all Interest Rates Even Old Balances – Jacking Consumers Around Again
August 14th, 2009. Published under Fraud. No Comments.
American Express Centurion Bank (AMEX) is really sticking it hard to American Express Blue card holders (every single one of them). There is nothing card holders can do about it either, you are at American Express’ mercy and they aren’t having any of that. Standard APR is going from fixed rate 11.99% to Prime Rate plus 11.99%. Rate as of Aug 1, 15.24% (this is applies to new purchases AND ALL BALANCES PREVIOUS) (aka variable interest rate) APR for Cash Advances will be 21.99% plus prime. APR for Late Payment will be 23.99% plus prime. Late fees for less than $250 will be $19, greater than $39. Read the full story on the Consumerist What do you want to bet that eventually all American Express card holder are going to have their interest rates and penalties jacked up. Well the cards that allow you to carry a balance that is. While this arbitrary tactic may boost American Expresses profits for a short while, what it will ultimately do is cause consumers to use credit less, especially if other credit card issuers do that same. Imagine if consumers that used credit cards, stopped using them and went back to using cash. The entire credit card industry would go into turmoil and the consumer would end up with the upper hand. My wife and I weaned ourselves off of credit cards about three years ago and haven’t had any problems with making purchases (we just make wiser choices now). No interest rate increases, no late fees and no sudden arbitrary fees at the whim of a credit card company. Yep it’s nice not to have financial crutches called credit cards. I like to call it financial freedom. My best advice: Cut up those American Express cards and do whatever you have to do to pay off the balance in a hurry, get out from under American Express debt. On top of that (This Just in News 9/14/2009) via the Associated Press Do you have an American Express Credit Card? Chances are your identity was just stolen. Amex cardholders’ data stolen by employee PS: Hey, Martin Rabinowitz ( martin.rabinowitz@aexp.com ) the Vice President of Credit Administration at American Express. Remember me? UP YOURS and AMEX’s and then some.
First Class Action Filed Against Georgia’s Mann Bracken and FIA Card Services (aka MBNA America Bank).
July 24th, 2009. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.
I personally hope that this is the first of many class-action lawsuits against Mann Bracken (aka Axiant, Aka Accretive Technologies), Wolpoff and Abramson, Eskanos and Adler and the rest that are involved. Of course at this point the class-action is filed, a judge still has to certify it as a class-action. However with all that has been going on I think it will gain class action status and I hope that a nationwide class action shows up soon. from wislawjournal.com The complaint (PDF) mapped out a “complex web” which boiled down to a cozy financial relationship: the arbitration services of NAF and sister organizations as well as the debt collection services of the law firm Mann Bracken and other companies have all been owned by the same New York hedge fund since 2007. The complaint alleged that the NAF violated state consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices and false advertising statutes through “complex and opaque corporate structuring” that concealed its financial ties and represented itself as a neutral party. “The ability of a class action litigant to get all of these other court cases undone is limited because of comity. Definitely a federal court will not be able to tell state courts to set aside judgments,” said Rubin, who hopes that other state attorneys general or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will step in and order that profits be disgorged. I just hope that there is some money left when my civil lawsuit filed in Georgia gets in front of a judge, I want a piece of Mann Bracken myself for the harassment I have endured…. If you have been harassed or had an illegal judgment against you then I suggest that you: File a complaint with the Georgia Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs against Mann Bracken. The state of Georgia is suing Mann Bracken for FDCPA and for violations of the Georgia Business Practices Act. Contact the Georgia Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs PDF complaint form http://consumer.georgia.gov/vgn/images/portal/cit_1210/35/26/117138786Complaintform.pdf If you are harassed by debt collectors or debt collector law firms, go to www.naca.net or www.martindale.com and get a consumer protection attorney and SUE the pants off of them. Consumer protection attorney’s work on a contingency basis (no upfront costs – i.e. $0.00). BE SURE to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) as well. It is imperative that they get your complaint. https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/
Read more from the original source:
First Class Action Filed Against Georgia’s Mann Bracken and FIA Card Services (aka MBNA America Bank).
Popular Searches
Federal Lawsuits Naming Mann Bracken Defendant – 74 so far in 2009
July 21st, 2009. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.
I still can’t figure out why the Federal Trade Commission has ignored Mann Bracken for so long. I think there is some hush money being spread around capital hill and the FTC is getting some of it. The below civil lawsuits naming Mann Bracken defendant brings the number of lawsuits filed against Mann Bracken in 2009 to 74 (and counting). From Justia.com federal civil filings
Congressional Hearing on Consumer Debt Arbitration July 22, 2009
July 21st, 2009. Published under Fraud. No Comments.
I have a feeling Mr. Kelly of NAF won’t have too much to say, with all the recent news about the National Arbitration Forum. Karma is definitely whacking the debt collection industry (finally).
National Arbitration Forum [NAF] to Cease Administering All Consumer Arbitrations
July 20th, 2009. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.
The below is a press release from Business Wire. No matter how the PR folks spin it, it’s still good news for consumers subjected to forced arbitration. I think they are ceasing consumer arbitration because of the suit they just settled with the state of Minnesota and are hoping other Attorney General’s or the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) won’t delve deeper into their questionable tactics or who is investing in the NAF. No matter the case or cause it is a *WIN* for consumers. I do sincerely hope that the FTC does investigate all involved with the National Arbitration Forum as I do believe that consumers were/are being hornswoggled by the NAF and by those associated with it. — American Consumers to Lose Affordable Access to Justice through Nation’s Largest Administrator of Consumer Arbitration Disputes MINNEAPOLIS–( BUSINESS WIRE )–The National Arbitration Forum (FORUM), the largest U.S. administrator of consumer arbitrations, today announced that it will voluntarily cease to administer consumer arbitration disputes as of Friday, July 24, 2009, as part of a settlement agreement with the Minnesota Attorney General. “The National Arbitration Forum remains committed to consumer arbitration as the best and most affordable option for consumers to resolve disputes quickly and efficiently. However, the FORUM lacks the necessary resources to defend against increasing challenges to arbitration on all fronts, including from state Attorneys General and the class action trial bar,” said Forthright CEO Mike Kelly. “Mounting legal costs, a challenging economic climate, and increased legislative uncertainty surrounding the future of arbitration have prompted the FORUM to exit the consumer arbitration arena. At this time, the costs of providing consumer arbitration services far exceed the revenue generated. Until Congress resolves the legal and legislative uncertainty the cost is simply too high for users and providers of consumer arbitration.” Legislative proposals pending in both houses of Congress threaten to eliminate pre-dispute arbitration as an effective means of alternative dispute resolution. The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 (S. 931/H.R. 1020) would invalidate every pre-dispute contractual arbitration agreement that is part of a consumer, financial or franchise dispute – in effect, every contract. The Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act (S. 512/H.R. 1237) would eliminate pre-dispute mandatory arbitration in all nursing home contracts. Legislation before the House to create a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (H.R. 3126) addresses arbitration and would give broad regulatory authority to restrict or eliminate all consumer arbitrations. “The National Arbitration Forum provides fair and affordable access to justice to American consumers regardless of size of their claims. Without access to arbitration, consumer disputes will now be forced into an overcrowded and underfunded legal system, where many consumers who cannot afford attorneys will have to navigate complex court procedures,” continued Kelly. “The consequence to American consumers is that there will be no meaningful alternative to costly and unpredictable litigation.” Notably, nothing in the Minnesota Attorney General’s complaint alleges that arbitration proceedings administered by the FORUM are unfair; the fairness of arbitration is ensured by the independence of the neutral arbitrators. National Arbitration Forum consumer arbitration claims are decided by an independent panel of more than 1,600 highly experienced and impartial legal professionals, including former judges and experienced attorneys. FORUM neutrals are bound to a code of professional ethics, and decide cases outside of any influence from the FORUM or the other parties. About the National Arbitration Forum (FORUM) Founded in 1986, the National Arbitration Forum (FORUM) is a world leader in arbitration and mediation services. The FORUM provides accessible civil justice through the recruitment, selection, and management of a highly experienced and distinguished panel of over 1,600 former judges and seasoned lawyers. Now optimized by Forthright, the FORUM is the faster, lower cost, and superior alternative to litigation, that ensures parties receive the same outcomes they would in court. www.adrforum.com
Original post:
National Arbitration Forum [NAF] to Cease Administering All Consumer Arbitrations