Consumers | Lionheart Group Scam Prevention Toolkit

Tag Archives: consumers

Cash Reward / Bounty for Illegal Debt Collections Still Being Offered

October 4th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.

Last year I offered a cash reward for proof of illegal debt collection practices. I now have a group funding the rewards and am looking for proof of illegal debt collection practices and collusion to abuse consumers in the accounts receivables industry. We are looking specifically for documentation of collection abuses (but not limited to) from the collection collection companies. If you work for or have worked for the following debt collection companies and/or collection law firms today is the day you can clear your conscience and know that you have done the right thing. Portfolio Recovery Associates Midland Funding NCO Financial Group Worldwide Asset Purchasing II, LLC Nationwide Credit Mann Bracken Phillips & Cohen Associates LTD West Asset Management Frederick Hanna & Associates We are also looking for documentation of collection and abuses by the following original creditors (aka banks, credit card companies and loan companies): American Express Centurion Bank Citibank Wells Fargo CapitalOne Discover Chase You can contact us confidentially with the basics and we will contact you. Your name and involvement will remain 100 percent confidential. Note that we do require physical proof that illegal debt collection practices or collusions to be documented. You can contact us here .

Originally posted here:
Cash Reward / Bounty for Illegal Debt Collections Still Being Offered

Senator Al Franken To Introduce Legislation To Curb Debt Collection Abuse

September 27th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.

According the the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Senator Al Franken will be introducing legislation aimed at curbing debt collection abuses. Apparently Senator Franken became quite shocked by the increasing number of lawsuits being filed by consumers against abusive debt collectors, and the tactics being used by the debt collection industry. In at least one state, debt collectors are using arrest warrants against defendants that do not show up in court when sued. Being sued over a debt is a civil matter, not a criminal matter judges should be the only ones that have the authority to issue an arrest warrant for failure to appear.

The Quickest and Easiest Way to Sue a Debt Collector for FDCPA Violations

September 25th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

I’ve been doing a lot of legal research for my next consumer book on how to sue debt collectors and collection law firms for violations of the fair debt collection practices act (FDCPA), fair credit reporting act (FCRA), telephone consumer protection act (TCPA) and the truth in lending act (TILA). I spend literally hours every day reading legal decisions, court filings and legal citations. Of late I have been researching the topic of the lack of proper disclosures (i.e. mini-miranda) in written and oral (i.e. telephone) communications by debt collectors to consumers. As with my last book, “ Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors ”, my next book will also be in an easy to understand format that consumers can use to sue debt collectors for breaking the law. Debt collectors frequently do not properly disclose who they are in telephone conversations or in voice mails left on consumers answering machines. A debt collector must abide certain federal regulations concerning the collection of debts, however, many times debt collectors will refrain from disclosing exactly who they are in order to entice (or scare) a consumer into calling back and this sort of behavior is illegal and actionable in a court of law (you can sue them for it). One of my most recent encounters with the lack of proper disclosure revolves around a debt collection company, Phillips & Cohen Associates LTD (sounds like a law firm name doesn’t is? They aren’t though) and through my research I found several federal cases where Phillips & Cohen lost their motions regarding proper disclosures (among others). Below are two examples of a debt collector not providing proper FDCPA disclosures and/or using misleading and deceptive tactics in contact with me personally. They are the same fellow using similar tactics and lack of proper disclosure (several years apart I might add). The links below are MP3 audio files. Call from 866-504-5035 (09/23/2010) The old call in 2007, same guy, threatening fraud charges Note that in both voicemails the debt collector fails to disclose that he is a debt collector, not does he disclose that the call is in reference to a debt (Section

BUSTED: Junk Debt Collector Phillips & Cohen 866-504-9784 You’re About To Be Sued

September 23rd, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

To whom it may concern at Phillips & Cohen, the debt collector that called me today and referenced a file number and told me to call them back or a would be pursued, is the same guy on that called me from another collection agency on May 2nd 2007 and told me he had fraud charge pending. Dirty debt collector scare tactics. I have included the voice mail from today and the one from 2007. I can assure you any further funny business on your part will result in my taking legal action against all involved. I’ve sued quite a few debt collectors for violating state and federal law and don’t have a problem doing so again. Scare tactics such as these are a wasted effort on your part. Being that you are a junk debt collector your sole option is to file suit naming me as defendant. Be aware though, I know how to beat the likes of you in court. So bring it on. Also just to so you are aware the number you are calling is a business phone. You will be receiving a cease all communication letter via certified mail. I would suggest that you abide by the cease and desist. Listen to the first MP3 file below, then listen to the older one, you will notice distinct voice characteristics in both recording, pay particular attention in the second This is a typical bad debt collector scare tactic and also illegal. Today Call from 866-504-5035 (09/23/2010) The old call in 2007, same guy, threatening fraud charges . (note the distinct similarities, same guy different name) Of course ACA International claims illegal and abusive debt collections are few and far between, yet here is the same guy, with two different names, working at two different collection agencies, doing the same sort of scare tactics. All I can say is come and get me (in court) so I can put you in your place. I had previously contacted the Federal Trade Commission about the older voice mail and now that I know that Phillips & Cohen and Worldwide Asset Purchasing are behind the calls I will forward the new information to Robin Rock, FTC attorney in Atlanta that had previously contacted me about the first call. When the FTC is through with you

Court Halts Deceptive Envelope-Stuffing Operation

September 21st, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Consumers Misled to Believe They Could Earn Substantial Income, FTC Alleges At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. district court has temporarily halted an envelope-stuffing operation that allegedly scammed cash-strapped consumers by falsely promising they could make substantial income working from home. As part of ongoing efforts to protect Americans who are struggling to cope with the economic downturn, the FTC charged that Louis Salatto and his company, Global U.S. Resources, deceived consumers into paying up-front fees by making phony promises about the earning potential of their envelope-stuffing operation. According to the FTC’s complaint, Salatto bought classified ads in local pennysavers and community newspapers that promised weekly earnings ranging from $1,200 to $4,400.

Chick-Fil-A’s Outsourced Networking Company Contingent Network Services, LLC Doesn’t Pay Their Bills

September 17th, 2010. Published under Scams. No Comments.

It’s sad that it goes to the point of having to call out Chik-Fil-A and their store in Statesboro Georgia (Chick-fil-A Store 00643 – Work Order 89931) regarding getting paid for upgrading their network as the entire problem revolves around the incompetence of Contingent Network Services, LLC, which handles their network. We received a P.O. from Contingent Network Services, LLC and complied with the instructions outlined in the purchase order and performed the work (we didn’t even bill them for the entire amount of time we were are the Statesboro store. Mr. Todd Schneider of Contingent Network Services became very condescending regarding them matter This first mistake you made would have been contacting Chick Fil A. Do Not do that! Of course I contacted Mr. Dan Cathy of Chick-Fil-A so that a resolution to the matter would be expedited. The ball is in your court Company Contingent Network Services, we expect payment for services rendered for upgrading the network. We complied with what was contained in the documents an purchase order that we received. If this is how Company Contingent Network Services conducts business perhaps Chick-Fil-A should reconsider using their services and find a more reliable and honest company to work with.

Repost: Something Harassing Debt Collectors Rather You Didn’t Know

September 17th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

There are many unscrupulous debt collectors out there that violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) many times each day. Things like calling your neighbors and telling them you are a dead beat, or telling you they are sending the police to put you in jail. By law they cannot do either of these nor can they use underhanded collection tactics (lying to you, abuse you, etc.) Before I go any further you need to know a few things. 1. Get caller ID on your phone (it’s going to be your best friend) 2. Document every call made to you by a debt collector 3. Save all answering machine messages (especially the ones where they tell you lies about sending you to jail, etc.) 4. When the debt collectors tells you they are recording the call, jokingly tell them you are recording it to (but make it sound like you are joking). Record the conversation. This will give you permission to record it as they don’t say no. Or if you are quick enough look up the phone number they care calling from and find out where it is originating from (reverse number lookup), then see if you and they are in one-party consent states (only requires one parties consent to record the conversation). 5. When you catch them violating the FDCPA find yourself a Consumer Protection Lawyer. Nearly all of them work on a contingency basis (no cost to you) and many offer

One Good Thing In A Bad Economy, Junk Debt Buyers Are Losing Their Shirts

September 15th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Personally speaking I enjoy seeing junk buyers going out of business. In a bad economy and buy old junk (bad) debts is a surefire way to go out of business. Junk Debt buyers by old uncollectible debts for a couple of cents per dollar and try collecting the full amount of the debt (and in my opinion is unjust enrichment). Today in the news a junk debt buyer, Hudson & Keyse, LLC

Being Sued Over a Debt? It May Just Be Fraud Upon The Court

September 13th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.

Many times an original creditor will farm out the collection of a debt to a collection company (such as Nationwide Credit), who in turn farm it out to collection attorneys so they can file suit on the debt (such as Hanna and Associates, the now defunct Mann Bracken, and others). The big problem with this is that the law firm that filed the suit doesn’t directly represent the original creditor, but the 2nd party collection company. Since the law firm didn’t name the 2nd party as the plaintiff, but named the original creditor as plaintiff many see this as “fraud upon the court” and at the very least the law firm didn’t name a “party in interest” in the lawsuit. Even better news is that anything the law firm introduces as evidence, witnesses, or documents is pure hearsay, being that the law firm is in actuality a third party to the proceedings. Collection law firms will go to great pains to hide the fact that they are indeed third parties to a suit and that they do not in fact directly represent the original creditor. I personally have been subject to such suits and have discovered several methods to expose the truth in the matter. First though, I would like to show an actual example of an attorney firm filing a lawsuit in which they didn’t directly represent the original creditor. Several years ago I was sued by Macey, Wilensky, Kessler and Hennings LLC of Atlanta Georgia. The suit named American Express Centurion Bank as Plaintiff. I had suspected that Nationwide Credit (a debt collection company) had been assigned the alleged account as I had sued another debt collector prior to being sued by Macey, Wilensky, Kessler and Hennings LLC and in the settlement the collector offered, American Express was included (which I made the remove before I settled with them). So upon being sued by Macey, Wilensky, Kessler and Hennings LLC I filed a FDIC complaint against American Express and asked to find out to whom they alleged debt had been assigned much to my surprise the letter I received (see below) from American Express in response to my complaint named Nationwide Credit Incorporated and not the law firm that filed suit. I then filed and won a motion (see below) to dismiss and subsequently filed suit against Macy, Wilensky, Kessler and Hennings LLC. Click image to see full size

Bad Debt Collection Companies Being Hit Where It Hurts In The Wallet

September 10th, 2010. Published under Scams. No Comments.

It’s good to see that nefarious debt collection companies are being fined for bad debt collection tactics. Below are several headlines that really have made my day. With more and more consumers beating debt collectors in court and aggressive state Attorney Generals’ going after abusive debt collection companies there will eventually be a lot less collection abuse. West Virginia AG Settles with National Recovery Services (aka Debt Collectors Carpenter Capital) Texas AG Goes After American Home Mortgage Servicing Maryland Beats Back Worldwide Asset Over Court Abuse Minnesota Debt Collection Agency Given the Boot (Five Star Group of Minnesota and Commercial Surveillance Bureau) Too bad the Federal Trade Commission takes their sweet time going after unscrupulous debt collection companies. It is high time that federal collection laws, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), be enhanced to exact more monetary fines from bad collection agencies.

Visit link:
Bad Debt Collection Companies Being Hit Where It Hurts In The Wallet

Shining a Light on Company’s Deceptive Claims for its LED Bulbs

September 8th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.

The Federal Trade Commission has sued a California-based light bulb manufacturer and its principals to stop them from misleading consumers by exaggerating the light output and life expectancy of its Light Emitting Diode (LED) bulbs. As part of the FTC’s continuing work to stop deceptive advertising, the agency filed a complaint charging that since 2008, Lights of America, Inc. has overstated the light output and life expectancy of its LED bulbs on packages and in brochures. The agency also charges that Lights of America misled consumers about how the brightness of its LED bulbs compares to traditional incandescent lights. Manufacturers have recently begun selling LED bulbs for household use because they are a higher-efficiency, longer-lasting alternative to incandescent and compact fluorescent bulbs. Although the initial price tag may be higher, well-designed and manufactured LED bulbs save on energy costs and last much longer than other types of light bulbs. The FTC alleges that in many instances, Lights of America’s LED bulbs produced significantly less light, as measured in lumens, than the company claimed in its promotional materials. For example, one bulb was promoted as producing 90 lumens of light output, but Lights of America’s own tests showed it produced only 43 lumens. Also, in many cases, Lights of America deceptively compared the brightness of its LED light bulbs with incandescent bulbs, the FTC alleges. For example, the firm claimed that one of its LED lantern bulbs could replace a 40-watt incandescent bulb. However, while the typical 40-watt incandescent bulb produces about 400 lumens, the Lights of America LED bulb produced only 74 lumens. Moreover, the FTC complaint states that in many instances, Lights of America’s LED bulbs would not last as long as the company’s promotional materials said they would. In one case, for example, the firm said that one of its LED recessed bulbs would last 30,000 hours. Independent tests, however, showed that the bulb would not last as long as claimed because it lost 80 percent of its light output after only 1,000 hours. In filing the complaint, the FTC is seeking a permanent injunction to stop the defendants’ allegedly illegal conduct, as well as monetary redress for consumers who bought the deceptively labeled products. The Commission vote authorizing the filing of the complaint was 5-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 7, 2010 against Lights of America, Inc.; Usman Vakil; and Farooq Vakil. NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. A complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. Copies of the Commission’s complaint can be found as a link to this press release on the FTC’s Web site. 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 1,800 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 .

Visit link:
Shining a Light on Company’s Deceptive Claims for its LED Bulbs

Debt Collection Headlines of the Week

September 4th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Strange, funny and stupid debt collection headlines of the week. ACA International still claims the debt collection industry should police itself. I think more Federal regulation of the industry is needed and the headlines below speak for themselves. DA’s ‘bad check’ collection program lands him in federal court Payday Loan Defendant Settles – Illegally Tried to Garnish Borrowers’ Wages Creditor sued for not contacting debtor’s attorney Texas AG Charges Mortgage Servicer With Illegal Collections Debt Collectors Sometimes Bark Up the Wrong Tree Justice denied as debt seizures soar

See more here:
Debt Collection Headlines of the Week

Payday Loan Defendant Settles Charges; Illegally Tried to Garnish Borrowers’ Wages

September 2nd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

One of the owners of a payday loan and debt collection operation has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges for his role in a scheme that illegally tried to garnish borrowers’ wages and used other illegal debt-collection practices. According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants, doing business as Ecash and GeteCash, offered loans to be repaid from borrowers’ upcoming paychecks. Online loan applicants checked a box indicating their agreement with loan terms, including an inconspicuous “wage assignment” clause that said that their wages would be garnished to cover delinquent loan payments. Then, using the name LoanPointe, the defendants attempted to collect on the offered payday loans. Federal law allows federal agencies to require employers to garnish employees’ wages without a court order when the employees owe the government money. According to the complaint, in letters to employers that sought garnishment of their employees’ wages, GeteCash and LoanPointe tried to pass themselves off as having the same collection rights as the government. The FTC’s complaint also alleges that GeteCash and LoanPointe falsely stated that consumers knew their pay would be garnished and had an opportunity to dispute the debt. In addition, GeteCash and LoanPointe allegedly violated the law when they told employers and co-workers about consumers’ debts without their consent. (See http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/04/getecash.shtm ) Under the settlement order, Mark S. Lofgren is banned from collecting debts through wage assignment. He is also permanently prohibited from misrepresenting facts in order to collect a debt; contacting a consumer’s employer in trying to collect a debt, unless he is seeking location information or has a valid court order of garnishment; and disclosing a debt to any third party. In addition, Lofgren is barred from violating the Credit Practices Rule and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, selling or otherwise benefitting from customers’ personal or financial information, and failing to properly dispose of customer information. The order imposes a $38,133 judgment that is suspended based on his inability pay. The full judgment will become due immediately if he is found to have misrepresented his financial condition. The FTC also dismissed Benjamin J. Lonsdale and James C. Endicott as defendants in the case. Litigation continues against Joe S. Strom, LoanPointe, LLC, and Eastbrook, LLC, also doing business as Ecash and GeteCash. The Commission votes to dismiss Lonsdale and Endicott from the complaint were 5-0. The Commission vote to file the stipulated final order with Lofgren was 4-1, with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch voting no. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division. NOTE: Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. 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 1,800 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 the original:
Payday Loan Defendant Settles Charges; Illegally Tried to Garnish Borrowers’ Wages

Debt Collectors Beware Federal Court Rules One Party Consent Telephone Recordings Are Okay

August 24th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Over the last several years there has been an ongoing debate regarding the lawfulness of one party telephone conversation recording, such as recording a debt collector making illegal, abusive and threatening phone calls. To date consumers only had their own state laws one the legality of one-party consent phone calls (only one person being aware or consenting to the recording). The US 2nd circuit

Auto Warranty Robocaller To Pay $2.3 Million, Sell Mercedes For Consumer Redress

August 23rd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Consumer Redress Collected from All Defendants in Robocall Case Totals $3 Million One of the telemarketers who blasted U.S. consumers with millions of illegal auto “warranty” robocalls last year will pay approximately $2.3 million, give up his Mercedes, and be barred from telemarketing, under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission that wraps up the agency’s case against the deceptive operation. In sum, the FTC is collecting nearly $3 million to reimburse victims of the scam. The settlements resolve FTC charges that Damian Kohlfeld and his two firms made millions of illegal prerecorded calls to consumers nationwide in an attempt to deceive them into buying extended auto warranties or service contracts (audio files of these calls can be found on the FTC’s website as a link to this press release). The robocalls misled consumers into thinking that the callers were affiliated with consumers’ car dealerships or manufacturers, and that their auto warranty was expiring or about to expire. Earlier this year, the FTC announced a settlement with two other defendants who helped make the robocalls, under which they have paid more than $655,000. The FTC also announced a settlement in September 2009 with Transcontinental Warranty, Inc, the company that employed the defendants in this case to make the illegal prerecorded calls. (See press release at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/09/twi.shtm .) “Fortunately for American consumers, the telemarketers who were responsible for millions of unsolicited and annoying robocalls will never be able to telemarket again,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “We’ve also taken away all of their money to provide redress for consumers who were defrauded. This case serves as a clear message: telemarketers who violate the privacy of ordinary Americans will have to pay the price.” According to the FTC’s complaint, Kohlfeld and the Chicago-based firms Voice Foundations, LLC, and Network Foundations, LLC, violated the FTC’s Do Not Call Registry and falsely represented that: the telemarketers were calling from, or affiliated with, the manufacturer or dealer of the consumer’s automobile; the consumer’s original automobile warranty was about to expire; and the telemarketer had specific information about whether the consumer’s vehicle was the subject of a recall. The settlement requires Kohlfeld to pay more than $2.2 million. In addition, he is required to liquidate two investment accounts totaling approximately $130,000 and to sell his 2006 Mercedes. All of the money collected will be used for consumer redress. The settlement order also bans Kohlfeld from telemarketing or assisting others engaged in telemarketing, prevents him from making the misrepresentations alleged in the FTC’s complaint, and bars him from making any misrepresentations related to the sale of any goods or services. The order specifically prohibits him from misrepresenting the cost, use, or effectiveness of any product or service or any of the refund policies associated with any product or services. In addition, Network Foundations will pay $50,000 to be used for consumer redress. Voice Foundations has no assets to pay toward a judgment. If either of the companies later is found to have misrepresented its financial condition, it will be subject to a larger monetary judgment. The Commission vote authorizing the three stipulated final orders settling the court actions against Network Foundations, LLC, Voice Foundations, LLC, and Damian Kohlfeld was 5-0. They were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on August 19, 2010, and signed by the judge the same day. NOTE: These stipulated final orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated final orders requires approval by the court and have the force of law when signed by the judge. Copies of the stipulated final orders are available from the FTC’s website 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 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 1,800 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 .

Go here to see the original:
Auto Warranty Robocaller To Pay $2.3 Million, Sell Mercedes For Consumer Redress

Abusive and Stupid Debt Collector Headlines of the Week

August 20th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

FTC Halts Cross Border Domain Name Registration and SEO Fees Scam

August 9th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

The Federal Trade Commission has permanently halted the operations of Canadian con artists who allegedly posed as domain name registrars and convinced thousands of U.S. consumers, small businesses and non-profit organizations to pay bogus bills by leading them to believe they would lose their Web site addresses unless they paid. Settlement and default judgment orders signed by the court will bar the deceptive practices in the future. In June 2008, the FTC charged Toronto-based Internet Listing Service with sending fake invoices to small businesses and others, listing the existing domain name of the consumer’s Web site or a slight variation on the domain name, such as substituting “.org” for “.com.” The invoices appeared to come from the businesses’ existing domain name registrar and instructed them to pay for an annual “WEBSITE ADDRESS LISTING.” The invoices also claimed to include a search engine optimization service. Most consumers who received the “invoices” were led to believe that they had to pay them to maintain their registrations of domain names. Other consumers were induced to pay based on Internet Listing Service’s claims that its “Search Optimization” service would “direct mass traffic” to their sites and that their “proven search engine listing service” would result in “a substantial increase in traffic.” The FTC’s complaint charged that most consumers who paid the defendants’ invoices did not receive any domain name registration services and that the “search optimization” service did not result in increased traffic to the consumers’ Web sites. A federal district court judge in Chicago, Robert M. Dow, Jr., ordered a temporary halt to the deceptive claims and froze the defendants’ assets, pending trial. The settlement and default judgment orders announced today end that litigation. The orders bar the defendants from misrepresenting: that they have a preexisting business relationship with consumers; that consumers owe them money; that they will provide domain name registration; and that they will provide “search optimization services” that will substantially increase traffic to consumers’ Web sites. The defendants are also required to disclose any material restrictions or aspects of any goods or services they provide. The settlement order, entered against defendants Isaac Benlolo, Kirk Mulveney, Pearl Keslassy, and 1646153 Ontario Inc., includes a suspended judgment of $4,261,876, the total amount of consumer injury caused by the illegal activities. Based on the inability of the settling defendants to pay, they will turn over $10,000 to satisfy the judgment. The default judgment order was entered against defendant Steven E. Dale and includes a judgment in the amount of $4,261,876. Charges against Ari Balabanian and Data Business Solutions were dismissed by the court at the FTC’s request. NOTE: Stipulated orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. 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 1,800 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 .

Follow this link:
FTC Halts Cross Border Domain Name Registration and SEO Fees Scam

Is Debt Collector H P & Associates of Jacksonville FL Violating the FDCPA?

August 2nd, 2010. Published under Business Scams. No Comments.

I received an email from an individual and from the tone of her email I felt that she was confused and afraid. Below is an excerpt from her email. “I received a call this evening from HPC collections, based out of Florida, claiming they were “releasing my case” to the local authorities to come collect the debt (me) by 7 PM if I did not pay the debt in full. This totally freaked me out and the “compliance officer” stated there was nothing he could do about it as “you don’t pay us”. Knowing they are a debt collection agency, I’m wondering who “I pay.” ~ Amy G. I did ask her to clarify the name of collection agency that called her and her response was that “ H P & Associates-HPC.

NEW FTC Rule to Protect Consumers in Credit Card Debt

July 30th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Amendments to Telemarketing Sales Rule Prohibiting Debt Relief Companies From Collecting Advance Fees Will Take Effect in October 2010 Starting on October 27, 2010, for-profit companies that sell debt relief services over the telephone may no longer charge a fee before they settle or reduce a customer’s credit card or other unsecured debt. “At the FTC we strive every day to make sure America’s middle class families get straight deals for their dollars,” Chairman Jon Leibowitz said. “This rule will stop companies who offer consumers false promises of reducing credit card debts by half or more in exchange for large, up-front fees. Too many of these companies pick the last dollar out of consumers’ pockets – and far from leaving them better off, push them deeper into debt, even bankruptcy.” Three other Telemarketing Sales Rule provisions to take effect on September 27, 2010, will: require debt relief companies to make specific disclosures to consumers; prohibit them from making misrepresentations; an extend the Telemarketing Sales Rule to cover calls consumers make to these firms in response to debt relief advertising. The Final Rule covers telemarketers of for-profit debt relief services, including credit counseling, debt settlement, and debt negotiation services. The Final Rule does not cover nonprofit firms, but does cover companies that falsely claim nonprofit status. Over the past decade, the FTC and state enforcers have brought a combined 259 cases to stop deceptive and abusive practices by debt relief providers that have targeted consumers in financial distress. Advance Fee Ban The Final Rule contains specific requirements for debt relief providers related to charging an advance fee before providing any services. It specifies that fees for debt relief services may not be collected until: the debt relief service successfully renegotiates, settles, reduces, or otherwise changes the terms of at least one of the consumer’s debts; there is a written settlement agreement, debt management plan, or other agreement between the consumer and the creditor, and the consumer has agreed to it; and the consumer has made at least one payment to the creditor as a result of the agreement negotiated by the debt relief provider. To ensure that debt relief providers do not front-load their fees if a consumer has enrolled multiple debts in one debt relief program, the Final Rule specifies how debt relief providers can collect their fee for each settled debt. First, the provider’s fee for a single debt must be in proportion to the total fee that would be charged if all of the debts had been settled. Alternatively, if the provider bases its fee on the percentage of what the consumer saves as result of using its services, the percentage charged must be the same for each of the consumer’s debts. Dedicated Account for Fees and Savings Another new provision of the Final Rule will allow debt relief companies to require that consumers set aside their fees and savings for payment to creditors in a “dedicated account.” However, providers may only require a dedicated account as long as five conditions are met: the dedicated account is maintained at an insured financial institution; the consumer owns the funds (including any interest accrued); the consumer can withdraw the funds at any time without penalty; the provider does not own or control or have any affiliation with the company administering the account; and the provider does not exchange any referral fees with the company administering the account. Disclosures and Prohibited Misrepresentations Under the Final Rule, providers will have to make several disclosures when telemarketing their services to consumers. Before the consumer signs up for any debt relief service, providers must disclose fundamental aspects of their services, including how long it will take for consumers to see results, how much it will cost, the negative consequences that could result from using debt relief services, and key information about dedicated accounts if they choose to require them. The Final Rule also prohibits misrepresentations about any debt relief service, including success rates and whether the provider is a nonprofit entity. The FTC’s Statement of Basis and Purpose, which accompanies the Final Rule, provides extensive guidance about the evidence providers must have to make advertising claims commonly used in selling debt relief services. The Rulemaking Process In August 2009, the FTC published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule and requesting public comments. Over 300 commenters, representing a wide variety of stakeholders, submitted comments in response. The Commission also held a public forum on the proposed amendments on November 4, 2009. The FTC developed the Final Rule based on the public comments, the record of the public forum and the FTC’s September 2008 Workshop on the debt settlement industry, recent testimony before Congress, and law enforcement actions brought by the Commission and the states. Information for Businesses Today, the FTC staff issued a compliance guide to help businesses comply with the new debt relief rules. The compliance guide describes the key changes to the Telemarketing Sales Rule affecting debt relief services, helps businesses determine if they are covered by the new rules, details information that covered entities must disclose to customers, and discusses how fees may now be collected. It can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/marketing/bus72.pdf on the agency’s website and is linked to this press release. The FTC vote approving publication of the Federal Register notice was 4-1, with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch voting no. The notice will be published in the Federal Register shortly, and is available now on the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/07/R411001finalrule.pdf . The provisions of the Final Rule will take effect on September 27, with the exception of the advance fee ban provision, which will take effect on October 27. 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 1,800 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 .

Visit link:
NEW FTC Rule to Protect Consumers in Credit Card Debt

Websites Warned That Offer ‘Free’ Credit Reports Must Disclose Federally Mandated Free Reports or Face Prosecution

July 23rd, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.

The Federal Trade Commission is warning 18 Internet websites offering free credit reports that they must clearly disclose that a free report is available under federal law. The FTC’s recently amended Free Credit Reports Rule, which took effect April 2, 2010, requires certain disclosures to help consumers distinguish between ads for free credit reports that often require them to buy credit monitoring or other services, and the federally mandated no-strings-attached credit reports available at AnnualCreditReport.com or 877-322-8228. For example, websites offering free credit reports must have a disclosure, with links to AnnualCreditReport.com and FTC.gov , that appears across the top of each page that mentions free credit reports. Violators are subject to legal action that can result in penalties of up to $3,500 per violation. The Commission vote to publicly disclose the warning letters was 5-0. Warning letters are being sent to the following: Company Name / Websites National Credit Report.Com LLC NationalCreditReport.com Quinstreet, Inc. FreeCreditReport4U.com MyCreditCenter.Com, Inc. MyCreditCenter.com, 3CreditReport.com, OnlineFreeCreditReports.com Vertrue, Inc. My3BureauCreditReport.com, FreeScore.com, Free3BureauCreditReport.com, FreeTripleCreditScore.com, FreeOnlineReportNow.com ConsumerTrack, Inc. GoFreeCredit.com, FreeCredit-Reports.net, Free-Credit-Reports-Repair.com ConsumerDirect, Inc. FreeCredit-Report.net, SmartCredit.com Mighty Net, Inc. 3FreeCreditReportsUSA.com Amie Nguyen AllFreeCreditReports.com Amanda Raab FreeCreditReportsUSA.com Information in credit reports may affect whether consumers can get a loan or a job, so it is important for consumers to check their reports and correct any inaccurate information. Consumers can learn more about their right to a free credit report under federal law at http://www.ftc.gov/freereports .

View post:
Websites Warned That Offer ‘Free’ Credit Reports Must Disclose Federally Mandated Free Reports or Face Prosecution

Dietary Supplement Maker to Pay $5.5 Million to Settle FTC False Advertising Charges

July 15th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

As part of its ongoing efforts to stop bogus health claims, the Federal Trade Commission is requiring a major marketer of dietary supplements to pay $5.5 million to settle charges that it falsely advertised that its supplements could help consumers lose weight and treat or prevent colds and other illnesses. The $5.5 million will be used for refunds to consumers who purchased Accelis, nanoSLIM, and any Cold MD, Germ MD, and Allergy MD product.

Federal Trade Commission Proposals to Reform the Debt Collection Industry

July 14th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

The Federal Trade Commission has made recommendations to fix the badly broken debt collection industry, especially debt litigation and arbitration. One of the biggest problems is that debt collection attorneys file complaints against consumers and upwards of 90 percent of the time have no physical proof that a debt is owed or that they are suing the proper person(s). These sorts of questionable debt collection lawsuits are exactly why the book “ Stick it To Sue Happy Debt Collectors ” was written. The book levels the playing field and gives consumers a very high chance of beating erroneous and highly questionable lawsuits in court. The book is written in an easy to understand manner and simplified steps on fighting debt collectors and their attorneys.

Georgia’s JAK Productions Inc to Pay $300,000 for Abandoning Millions of Telemarketing Calls

June 30th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Still Having Wages Garnished by Mann Bracken Debt Judgment? Here is What to Do

June 21st, 2010. Published under Scams. No Comments.

According to an attorney that is suing Mann Bracken on behalf of a consumer, Cory Zaidel has stated that consumers that are under a wage garnishment by Mann Bracken should file a motion to quash (set aside) the garnishment as the money being garnished may not be going to the creditor or debt buyer that obtained a judgment against them. “The claims are mounting,” said Towson consumer attorney Cory L. Zajdel, who is representing a Howard County woman in a suit against Mann Bracken for allegedly unfair debt-collection practices. Consumers whose wages are still being docked should file paperwork to quash the garnishment with the court that handled the case, Zajdel said. Maryland’s district courts have the necessary forms, he said. His concern is that money going to the defunct Mann Bracken might not make it to the creditors. ~ Baltimore Sun In addition the court appoint receiver for now defunct Mann Bracken may sue ‘parties’ that may have caused the demise of Mann Bracken. My personal opinion (Allen Harkleroad, author of Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors ) would be to file a motion to Quash and/or a Motion to Vacate any prior judgments that Mann Bracken may have obtained against consumers, especially judgments with wage garnishments.

See the original post here:
Still Having Wages Garnished by Mann Bracken Debt Judgment? Here is What to Do

More Than A Dozen Marketers Banned from Selling Mortgage Relief Services; Repeat Offender Ordered to Pay $11.4 Million for Contempt

June 18th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

As part of the agency’s continuing crackdown on scams that prey on financially distressed homeowners, the Federal Trade Commission announced legal actions against more than a dozen marketers accused of pitching bogus mortgage modification or foreclosure relief services. FTC settlement orders ban 16 marketers from the mortgage modification or foreclosure relief business. The promoter of a similar scam has been ordered to pay $11.4 million for flouting a previous court order. And, in a new action, the FTC has charged another online marketing operation with masquerading as a government mortgage assistance program. The FTC settled with the following defendants, all of whom charged consumers up-front fees and made false promises that they could get their loans modified or prevent foreclosure: Making Home Affordable. The FTC alleged that the defendants impersonated MakingHomeAffordable.gov, a federal government Web site that helps eligible homeowners refinance or modify their mortgages. Defendants Sean Cantkier, Michael Haller, Alan LeStourgeon, Greg Rivera, Lisa Roye, and Jeffrey Altmire bought advertising links on the results pages of Internet search engines, and consumers looking for “making home affordable” were diverted to commercial Web sites that pitched loan modification services or sold consumers’ personal information to marketers of such services. (7/10/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/homeafford.shtm ) The defendants will have to give up their ill-gotten gains, ranging from $1,523 to $29,179. Separately, the Commission authorized and the court approved the addition of two counts to the complaint against Scot Lady and dismissed Kean Lee Lim as a defendant. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Federal Loan Modification Law Center. Defendants Nabile (“Bill”) Anz, Federal Loan Modification Law Center LLP, Anz & Associates PLC, Venture Legal Support PLC, and Jeffrey Broughton settled FTC charges that they hawked their so-called “Federal Loan Modification program” in a national advertising campaign targeting financially distressed homeowners. They charged up to $3,000, much of which they required up-front, but Federal Loan Modification often failed to live up to the promised results, according to the FTC’s complaint. (06/26/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/06/fedloanmod.shtm ) In addition to the ban on selling mortgage relief services, the settlement order against Anz, Federal Loan Modification Law Center, Anz & Associates, and Venture Legal Support imposes a $10.8 million judgment, and the order against Broughton imposes a $11.1 million judgment. The judgments are suspended based on their inability to pay. The full judgments will become due immediately if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition or receive any money from the remaining defendants. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The FTC continues to pursue its case against five other defendants. Apply2Save. Derek R. Oberholtzer, Apply2Save Inc., and Sleeping Giant Media Works, Inc. allegedly charged consumers up to $995 in advance for promised mortgage loan modification services. Once they were paid, they often failed to answer or return consumers’ telephone calls and sometimes falsely blamed delays on lenders, even though they had made little or no effort to contact lenders, the FTC charged. Most consumers who got loan modifications or avoided foreclosure did so only through their own efforts. (7/15/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/loanlies.shtm ) The defendants have filed for bankruptcy. The order imposes a judgment of more than $4 million, which is suspended based on their inability to pay. The full judgment will become due immediately if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. New Hope Modifications. Brian Mammoccio and Donna Fisher have settled charges that they falsely claimed they could obtain mortgage loan modifications for consumers in all or virtually all cases, falsely promised a money-back guarantee, and masqueraded as part of the federally-endorsed HOPE NOW Alliance mortgage assistance network. According to the FTC complaint, in many cases, after consumers paid up-front fees, the defendants failed to return their phone calls, or falsely told them that negotiations were proceeding smoothly. In many instances, consumers learned from their lenders that the defendants had not contacted them. (3/24/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/03/newhope.shtm ) In addition to the ban on selling mortgage relief services, the settlement order imposes a judgment of almost $3.9 million, which will be suspended when the defendants surrender their assets as specified in the order. The full judgment will become due immediately if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The $11.4 million contempt order against Bryan D’Antonio and three companies he controls, The Rodis Law Group Inc., America’s Law Group Inc., and The Financial Group Inc., came at the request of the FTC, which charged that operators of the scam had falsely claimed they would stop foreclosures and negotiate lower mortgage interest rates, monthly payments, and principal balances. Promoters of the scam claimed a 100 percent success rate and wrongly advised consumers to pay them instead of making mortgage payments. The FTC alleged that homeowners got few, if any, loan modifications, and many people lost their homes to foreclosure after paying them up to $5,500. The operators also falsely claimed that attorneys would check consumers’ loan documents for fraud and other lending violations that they would use as leverage in negotiating loan modifications, according to the complaint. In May 2009, the FTC charged the defendants with violating a 2001 order that banned D’Antonio from telemarketing and misleading consumers about goods or services. The FTC obtained the 2001 order against D’Antonio and his former company, Data Medical Capital Inc., for operating a work-at-home medical billing opportunity scheme. D’Antonio also pleaded guilty to mail fraud for his involvement in that scam and served almost three years in prison. In addition to the financial sanctions against D’Antonio and the three companies, the court barred him from making misleading statements about refunds, exchanges, and total costs or quantity. The FTC has collected more than $1 million from the defendants’ available assets thus far, and will refer the remainder of the $11.4 million judgment to the Department of the Treasury for collection. The FTC has set up a consumer information line at 1-888-398-8205. Fedmortgageloans.com . The FTC has charged Dominant Leads LLC, MAD TJ Holdings LLC, James Rambadt, Thomas Hayes, and James Kane with misrepresenting that the mortgage assistance and debt relief programs they are marketing are affiliated with the federal or state government, and that consumers may be eligible for a federal or state loan modification or debt relief program. Some of the defendants’ Web sites use logos similar to the federal government’s MakingHomeAffordable.gov logo, and many of their sites feature official government agency seals or logos and links to federal government Web sites. When consumers seeking mortgage assistance or debt relief services call the toll-free numbers on the defendants’ Web sites, they are connected to other companies that sell supposed mortgage assistance relief or debt relief services for a fee. The FTC seeks to stop the defendants’ illegal practices and make them forfeit their ill-gotten gains. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 16, 2010. The Commission votes were unanimous in these actions. The Federal Trade Commission is a member of the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. For more information on the task force, go to www.stopfraud.gov . 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. Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. 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 1,800 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 here:
More Than A Dozen Marketers Banned from Selling Mortgage Relief Services; Repeat Offender Ordered to Pay $11.4 Million for Contempt

Debt collector Midland Funding LLC to pay $330K settlement

June 17th, 2010. Published under Scams. No Comments.

“In a victory for consumer protection advocates, a major Maryland debt collector has agreed to drop 10,000 lawsuits against people who, in turn, alleged they were pursued illegally by the then-unlicensed company. Midland Funding LLC will also pay the class $200,000 and its lawyers $130,000. Judge Richard D. Bennett preliminarily approved the deal Monday afternoon.” ~ Source the Daily Record

View post:
Debt collector Midland Funding LLC to pay $330K settlement

Court Halts Massive Telemarketing Robocall Operation

June 10th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.

The Federal Trade Commission’s work to stop deceptive pre-recorded “robocalls” took another step forward today as a federal court halted a major telemarketing operation that made millions of illegal phone calls pitching worthless extended auto warranties and credit card interest rate-reduction programs. At the request of the FTC, a federal court judge in Chicago has entered an order stopping the operation’s calls, temporarily freezing its assets, and appointing a receiver to take control of the operation. “Telemarketers need to understand that blasting consumers with ‘robocall’ pitches is no longer legal,” said FTC Midwest Region Director C. Steven Baker. “Unless you have someone’s consent up-front and in writing to receive a robocall, just don’t do it. The rules could not be simpler than that, and we will go after telemarketers who ignore them.” According to the FTC, SBN Peripherals, Inc., based near Los Angeles, allegedly made more than 370 million calls to consumers nationwide in the past year alone, prompting tens of thousands of complaints to the agency. One telephone service provider told the FTC that during a single day in April 2009 the defendants sent 2.4 million calls to consumers – more than 27 calls per second. The FTC charges the robocalls violated the agency’s Do Not Call Registry Rule. To make it difficult for consumers to identify the caller, the FTC alleges that SBN’s robocalls often transmitted caller ID information vaguely identifying the caller as “SALES DEPT” and displaying telephone numbers registered to an offshore company it controlled called Asia Pacific Telecom. Asia Pacific, a foreign shell company for SBN, made many of the calls and lists its addresses in locations as disparate as the Northern Mariana Islands, Hong Kong, and the Netherlands, the FTC’s complaint alleges. According to the FTC, three of Asia Pacific’s telemarketing numbers accounted for more than 25,000 consumer complaints to the agency in the past year. Two of those telephone numbers – 301-882-9986 and 757-990-8981 – generated more complaints to the FTC during the past year than any other robocall number. Many of the calls were made to cell phones, sticking consumers with additional charges. The operation allegedly used a technology known as “voice broadcasting” to deliver its fraudulent pitches. The FTC charges that the recordings falsely claimed that the caller had urgent information about the consumer’s auto warranty or credit card interest rate. Consumers who pressed “1” for more information were transferred to live telemarketers at a variety of different locations, who used fraudulent practices to sell inferior extended auto service contracts or worthless debt-reduction services. The company’s calls may be familiar to consumers who have answered the phone, only to be greeted by a recording from “Stacey at Account Holder Services” or “Rachel at Cardholder Services” pitching a purported service to lower their credit card interest rate. The FTC’s complaint alleges that defendants violated the FTC’s telemarketing rules by: using robocalls to contact consumers. Under the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, since September 1, 2009, nearly all such pre-recorded calls have been illegal, unless the seller first obtains the consumer’s written permission; calling consumers whose telephone numbers are on the National Do Not Call Registry; “abandoning” pre-recorded calls (not connecting to a live person when a consumer answers) at a higher rate than permitted under law (three percent of all calls made); and repeatedly calling consumers who asked to be put on their company-specific do-not-call list. The FTC alleges SBN delivered robocalls on behalf of at least seven entities that the agency or state attorneys general previously sued for engaging in fraudulent sales practices. SBN also allegedly made illegal “extended auto warranty robocalls” on behalf of another company owned by Fereidoun “Fred” Khalilian, a repeat telemarketing offender against whom the FTC obtained a new court order last week (see press release at: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/06/dolcegroup.shtm ). In addition to the temporary restraining order and asset freeze announced today, the FTC is seeking a court order permanently barring the allegedly illegal conduct and will seek consumer redress as appropriate. The Commission vote approving the complaint was 5-0. It was filed under seal on May 25, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The court issued a temporary restraining order against the defendants on May 26, 2010. The FTC filed the complaint announced today against Asia Pacific Telecom, Inc., doing business as (d/b/a) Asia Pacific Networks; Repo B.V.; SBN Peripherals, Inc., d/b/a SBN Dials; Johan Hendrik Smit Duyzentkunst; and Janneke Bakker-Smit Duyzentkunst. The Commission would like to acknowledge the assistance that telecommunications carriers AT&T and Verizon Wireless provided in the investigation of the case. The FTC reminds consumers that if they get a robocall they did not authorize, they can file a complaint by going to: www.donotcall.gov or by calling 1-888-382-1222. The FTC’s Do Not Call Registry for telemarketers accepts both land lines and cell phone numbers. NOTE: The Commission issues 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 issuance of a complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have violated the law. Copies of the complaint are available from 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 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 1,800 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 .

Originally posted here:
Court Halts Massive Telemarketing Robocall Operation

U-Haul and its Parent Company Settle FTC Charges That They Invited Competitors to Fix Prices on Truck Rentals

June 9th, 2010. Published under Scams. No Comments.

U-Haul International, Inc. and its parent company today settled Federal Trade Commission charges that they violated the FTC Act by inviting U-Haul’s closest competitor, Avis Budget Group, Inc., to collude on prices for truck rentals. U-Haul and Budget control more than 70 percent of the “do-it-yourself” one-way truck rental business in the United States. If U-Haul had succeeded in its price-fixing plan, the two companies could have imposed higher prices on truck-rental consumers, according to the FTC. “It’s a bedrock principle that you can’t conspire with your competitors to fix prices – and shouldn’t even try. Consumers deserve better. The order announced today will ensure that U-Haul will not try it again,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. The FTC’s complaint alleges that on several occasions between 2006 and 2008, U-Haul tried to increase rates for one-way truck rentals by privately and publicly communicating with Budget, the second-largest truck rental company in the United States. However, the complaint does not allege that U-Haul and Budget actually reached an agreement. As alleged in the complaint, the problems started after U-Haul’s CEO and Chairman Edward J. Shoen discovered in 2006 that competition from Budget was forcing U-Haul to lower prices on its one-way truck rentals. In two company-wide memos in 2006, Shoen acknowledged the problem and provided a solution. For example, Shoen wrote: “Budget continues in some markets to undercut us on One-Way rates. Either get below them or go up to a fair rate. Whatever you do, LET BUDGET KNOW. Contact a large Budget Dealer and tell them. Contact their company store and let the manager know.” At the same time, the FTC charges, Shoen told local U-Haul dealers to talk to their counterparts at both Budget and Penske – another truck rental competitor – and tell them that U-Haul had raised its one-way rates, and that they should now match U-Haul’s higher rates. The complaint alleges that Shoen invited Budget to collude again in 2008 after Budget declined to match U-Haul’s price increases – this time, during a conference call with industry analysts. During the call, Shoen made statements suggesting that U-Haul would raise its rates, and would maintain the new rates so long as Budget did not respond by price cutting in a way that took market share from U-Haul. He added that Budget need not match the U-Haul prices exactly, but could lag behind by three to five percent. The proposed settlement order against U-Haul and its parent company AMERCO bars them from colluding or inviting collusion. Specifically, the companies are prohibited from inviting a competitor to divide markets, allocate customers, or fix prices, as well as participating in, maintaining, organizing, implementing, enforcing, offering, or soliciting any other company to engage in such conduct. The order also includes monitoring and compliance provisions to ensure U-Haul and AMERCO comply with its terms. It will expire in 20 years. The FTC vote approving the complaint and proposed settlement order was 5-0. Commissioners William E. Kovacic, J. Thomas Rosch, and Chairman Leibowitz issued a joint separate statement that can be found at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0810157/100609uhaulstatement.pdf . The statement noted that Congress gave the FTC authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to stop unfair methods of competition beyond the antitrust laws, but it is not itself an antitrust law and does not on its own terms create treble damages liability. The order will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until July 9, 2010, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To submit a comment electronically, please click on the following link: https//public.commentworks.com/ftc/U-HaulAmerco . NOTE: The Commission issues 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 issuance of a complaint is not a finding or ruling that the respondent has violated the law. A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000. Copies of the complaint, consent order, and an analysis to aid in public comment can be found on the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to antitrust@ftc.gov , or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Room 383, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read “Competition Counts” at http://www.ftc.gov/competitioncounts .

See the original post:
U-Haul and its Parent Company Settle FTC Charges That They Invited Competitors to Fix Prices on Truck Rentals

Bank of America / Countrywide Will Pay $108 Million for Overcharging Struggling Homeowners; Loan Servicer Inflated Fees and Mishandled Loans

June 7th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

Two Countrywide mortgage servicing companies will pay $108 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they collected excessive fees from cash-strapped borrowers who were struggling to keep their homes. The $108 million represents one of the largest judgments imposed in an FTC case, and the largest mortgage servicing case. It will be used to reimburse overcharged homeowners whose loans were serviced by Countrywide before it was acquired by Bank of America in July 2008. “Life is hard enough for homeowners who are having trouble paying their mortgage. To have a major loan servicer like Countrywide piling on illegal and excessive fees is indefensible,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “We’re very pleased that homeowners will be reimbursed as a result of our settlement.” According to the complaint filed by the FTC, Countrywide’s loan-servicing operation deceived homeowners who were behind on their mortgage payments into paying inflated fees – fees that could add up to hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Many of the homeowners had taken out loans originated or funded by Countrywide’s lending arm, including subprime or “nontraditional” mortgages such as payment option adjustable rate mortgages, interest-only mortgages, and loans made with little or no income or asset documentation, the complaint states. Mortgage servicers are responsible for the day-to-day management of homeowners’ mortgage loans, including collecting and crediting monthly loan payments. Homeowners cannot choose their mortgage servicer. In March 2008, before being acquired by Bank of America, Countrywide was ranked as the top mortgage servicer in the United States, with a balance of more than $1.4 trillion in its servicing portfolio. When homeowners fell behind on their payments and were in default on their loans, Countrywide ordered property inspections, lawn mowing, and other services meant to protect the lender’s interest in the property, according to the FTC complaint. But rather than simply hire third-party vendors to perform the services, Countrywide created subsidiaries to hire the vendors. The subsidiaries marked up the price of the services charged by the vendors – often by 100% or more – and Countrywide then charged the homeowners the marked-up fees. The complaint alleges that the company’s strategy was to increase profits from default-related service fees in bad economic times. As a result, even as the mortgage market collapsed and more homeowners fell into delinquency, Countrywide earned substantial profits by funneling default-related services through subsidiaries that it created solely to generate revenue. According to the FTC, under most mortgage contracts, homeowners must pay for necessary default-related services, but mortgage servicers may not mark up the cost to make a profit or charge homeowners for services that are not reasonable or appropriate to protect the mortgage holder’s interest in the property. Homeowners do not have any choice in who performs default-related services or the cost of those services, and they have no option to shop for those services. In addition, in servicing loans for borrowers trying to save their homes in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, the complaint charges that Countrywide made false or unsupported claims to borrowers about amounts owed or the status of their loans. Countrywide also failed to tell borrowers in bankruptcy when new fees and escrow charges were being added to their loan accounts. The FTC alleges that after the bankruptcy case closed and borrowers no longer had bankruptcy court protection, Countrywide unfairly tried to collect those amounts, including in some cases via foreclosure. Settlement Terms The FTC’s complaint and settlement order name two mortgage servicers as defendants: Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, formerly doing business as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP. The settlement requires Countrywide to pay $108 million, which will be refunded to homeowners who Countrywide overcharged before July 2008. In addition, the settlement order prohibits Countrywide from taking advantage of borrowers who have fallen behind on their payments. The defendants continue to service millions of mortgage loans, including tens of thousands of loans involving borrowers in bankruptcy and foreclosure. In the servicing of loans, the defendants are permanently barred from: Making false or unsubstantiated representations about loan accounts, such as amounts owed. Charging any fee for a service unless it is authorized by the loan instruments, by law, or by the consumer for a specific service requested by the consumer. Charging any fee for a default-related service unless it is a reasonable fee charged by a third party for work actually performed. If the service is provided by an affiliate of a defendant, the fee must be within limits set by state law, investor guidelines, and market rates. Defendants must obtain annual, independent market reviews of their affiliates’ fees to ensure that they are not excessive. In addition, Countrywide must advise consumers if it intends to use affiliates for default-related services and, if so, provide a fee schedule of the amounts charged by the affiliates. The settlement also requires Countrywide to make significant changes to its bankruptcy servicing practices. For example, Countrywide must send borrowers in Chapter 13 bankruptcy a monthly notice with information about what amounts the borrower owes – including any fees assessed during the prior month. The defendants also must implement a data integrity program to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data they use to service loans in Chapter 13 bankruptcy. This case was brought with the invaluable assistance of the United States Trustee Program, the component of the Department of Justice that oversees the administration of bankruptcy cases and private trustees. This action represents the FTC’s continuing work to help consumers who have been hurt by the economic downturn. For more information about the case and the FTC’s refund program, see www.ftc.gov/countrywide . The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint and settlement was 5-0. The complaint and settlement were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Federal Trade Commission is a member of the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. For more information on the Task Force, visit www.stopfraud.gov . NOTE: The Commission files 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. Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. 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 1,800 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 more here:
Bank of America / Countrywide Will Pay $108 Million for Overcharging Struggling Homeowners; Loan Servicer Inflated Fees and Mishandled Loans

Book Review – Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors

May 26th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

This is a customer review written by Bob P., he asked me to not publish his last name due to the nature of the subject. With that said this is what Bob had to say about my book, “Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors”. THE REVIEW Allen’s book is truly the “Holy Grail” for fighting ruthless debt collectors. Most of the examples in the book can be used as is, or slightly modified for your particular state. It will take a little work on your part, but with internet research and Allen’s guidance, your confidence and ability to fight your way out of a debt burden changes from being on the defensive, taking all the collection blows, to going on the offensive with the information you will need to win. Knowledge is power and Allen’s book is filled with the right knowledge and power. Here are some of the key points I never realized: 9 out of 10 folks never respond to suits or show up in court and as a result they automatically lose, not only the amount claimed by inflated attorney fees and expenses. Then it is a simple matter for the collection agencies to garnish your wages. Allen prepares you to fight. If you follow Allen’s instructions, it is mostly paperwork and you will probably never have to go to court. Allen describes that debt collectors often sue based on a “Suits of Accounts”, which does not require as much of a burden of proof as a “Breach of Contract”. In most states this is not the correct type of suit for credit card debt, which is generally “Breach of Contract”. Breach of Contract is much easier for you to defend yourself as it can be more difficult for the collection agency to prove. If you search for “Suits of Accounts” cases in your state, you can often find the State Attorney General or Courts have a write-up explaining why these are not proper suits for credit cards. Again, if you don’t challenge, you make it easy for the collection agencies suing you. Allen also provides the strategy you need. Once you know how the game is played, you will be more effective. Also he gives an excellent explanation of the examples he uses. Allen points out that most credit card receivables from banks are sold to a trust that is held in an Asset Backed Security. He gives the SEC reference to search out filings. His example of Capital One is brilliant. In essence, the bank/collection agency filing suit against you does not own the credit card receivable. Without documentation showing that a defaulted credit card goes back to the bank, you can challenge that the bank/collection agency is not the owner of the debt, and as such, ask for a “Motion to Dismiss”. What a stroke of genius. These are just a few of the gems I found in the book. My thanks to Allen and also thanks that he answers emails as well. To find out more about the book or to purchase visit Beat Debt Collectors (eBook and print editions available). DIRECT PURCHASE LINKS You can buy the print edition at Amazon.com ($24.95) or the eBook (PDF) edition ($19.95) at the GMP Services online store.

See the rest here:
Book Review – Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors

Notorious Rogue Internet Service Provider Permanently Shut Down

May 20th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

3FN Service Specialized in Hosting Spam-Spewing Botnets, Phishing Websites, Child Pornography, and Other Illegal, Malicious Web Content At the Federal Trade Commission’s request, a district court judge has permanently shut down a rogue Internet Service Provider that recruited, hosted, and actively participated in the distribution of spam, spyware, child pornography, and other malicious and illegal content. The ISP’s computer servers and other assets have been seized and will be sold by a court-appointed receiver, and the operation has been ordered to turn over $1.08 million in ill-gotten gains to the FTC. In June 2009, the FTC charged that 3FN, which does business under a variety of names, actively recruited and colluded with criminals to distribute harmful electronic content including spyware, viruses, trojan horses, phishing schemes, botnet command-and-control servers, and pornography featuring children, violence, bestiality, and incest. The FTC alleged that the defendant advertised its services in the darkest corners of the Internet, including a chat room for spammers. The FTC complaint alleged that 3FN actively shielded its criminal clientele by either ignoring take-down requests issued by the online security community, or shifting its criminal elements to other Internet protocol addresses it controlled to evade detection. The FTC also alleged that 3FN deployed and operated botnets – large networks of computers that have been compromised and enslaved by the originator of the botnet, known as a “bot herder.” Botnets can be used for a variety of illicit purposes, including sending spam and launching denial-of- service attacks. According to the FTC, the defendant recruited bot herders and hosted the command-and-control servers – the computers that relay commands from the bot herders to the compromised computers known as “zombie drones.” Transcripts of instant-message logs filed with the district court show the defendants’ senior employees discussing the configuration of botnets with bot herders. And, in filings with the district court, the FTC alleged that more than 4,500 malicious software programs were controlled by command-and-control servers hosted by 3FN. This malware included programs capable of keystroke logging, password stealing, and data theft, programs with hidden backdoor remote control activity, and programs involved in spam distribution. The FTC charged that 3FN’s distribution of illegal, malicious, and harmful content and deployment of botnets that compromised thousands of computers, harmed consumers and was an unfair practice, in violation of federal law. On June 15, 2009 the court issued a preliminary injunction to prohibit 3FN’s illegal activities and require its upstream Internet providers and data centers to stop providing services to 3FN. The court has now ordered a permanent bar on the illegal activities of 3FN and its agents and has appointed a receiver and instructed him to liquidate the operation’s assets. The defendants named in the FTC’s complaint are Pricewert LLC, also doing business as 3FN.net, Triple Fiber Network, APS Telecom, APX Telecom, APS Communications, and APS Communication. This case was brought with the invaluable assistance of NASA’s Office of Inspector General, Computer Crime Division; Gary Warner, Director of Research in Computer Forensics, University of Alabama at Birmingham; The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; The Shadowserver Foundation; Symantec Corporation; and The Spamhaus Project. 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 1,800 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 .

More here:
Notorious Rogue Internet Service Provider Permanently Shut Down

Victims of Work-at-Home Medical Billing Fraud Being Reimbursed $95,000

May 20th, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

3,500 Checks Being Mailed This Week on Behalf of FTC to Consumers Nationwide This week, an administrator working on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission mailed checks to 3,500 consumers nationwide who were defrauded by a group of marketers accused of hawking phony business opportunities. Consumers who were victims of this scam will receive a total of $95,000 in redress. These are legitimate checks, and the FTC urges consumers to cash them. The reimbursement stems from the February 2008 settlement of a case brought as part of Project Fal$e Hope$, a Commission-led law enforcement sweep that included more than 100 actions filed by the FTC, the Department of Justice, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and other agencies in 11 states. In this case, known as EDI Healthclaims, the FTC alleged that scammers used mass mailings to consumers offering a “work-at-home” business opportunity to earn easy money electronically processing health-care providers’ medical claims for insurance reimbursement. According to the FTC, the defendants misled consumers by stating they would help them find their first medical billing client and give them a list of providers in their area looking for billing help – after the consumers paid a “licensing fee” of between $4,985 and $5,985. Consumers, who were promised they would earn at least $1,200 a month, often made nothing and lost their up-front fee, according to the FTC’s complaint, which can be found at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0623033/061212cmp0623033.pdf . The redress checks are valid for 60 days from the date they are issued. Consumers should call 1-877-678-0676 with any questions. The FTC never requires the payment of money up front, or the provision of additional information, before consumers cash redress checks issued to them. 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 1,800 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 the original here:
Victims of Work-at-Home Medical Billing Fraud Being Reimbursed $95,000

Inspiring Consumer Debt and Consumer Protection Attorneys

April 30th, 2010. Published under Scams. No Comments.

I received several emails from consumer debt and consumer protection attorneys that have read my latest book, “ Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors ”. Mind you I am not an attorney, however because of my previous financial situation I had to learn to fight debt collectors and debt collection law firms because they used questionable tactics to collect or sue on a debt. I’ve spent literally thousands of hours researching federal and state law and learned how to beat greedy debt collectors at their own game. I wrote the book to help other consumers that cannot afford to hire an attorney, so that they can defend themselves in court against unscrupulous lawyers. When a collector files a lawsuit it is not longer about the debt in question but the matter of law. Only one out of ten consumers respond to a debt lawsuit, and end up having their wages and bank accounts garnished because they didn’t fight back.

$6 Million in Refunds Mailed to Consumers Who Bought Deceptively Advertised Weight-loss Supplements from QVC

April 28th, 2010. Published under Fraud. No Comments.

Starting April 30, an administrator working for the Federal Trade Commission will mail more than 140,000 refund checks totaling about $6 million to consumers who bought certain “For Women Only” brand dietary supplements from TV home shopping channel QVC, Inc.

Women’s Clothing Retailer Talbots and its Telemarketer to Pay Total of $161,000 for Violating FTC’s Robocall ‘Opt-Out’ Requirements

April 28th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

Women’s clothing retailer Talbots and its California marketing company have agreed to pay penalties totaling $161,000 to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they illegally delivered prerecorded “robocalls” that failed to give consumers proper notice of their right to opt out of receiving telemarketing calls. Talbots operates stores in 587 locations in 47 states, the District of Columbia, and Canada. It markets clothing under the Talbots brand, and prior to July 2009, also marketed clothing under the J. Jill brand. Talbots and its telemarketer, SmartReply, Inc., have both agreed to orders that prohibit them from violating the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule in the future. Among other requirements, when using prerecorded telemarketing messages, the companies must: Tell consumers how to opt out of receiving telemarketing calls from the seller before delivering the seller’s sales pitch; Immediately disconnect consumers who indicate that they do not want to receive such calls; and Inform consumers listening to the message that they can make a do-not-call request at any time during a call. According to the FTC, Talbots and SmartReply violated the prerecorded message requirements in the Telemarketing Sales Rule during seven advertising campaigns conducted between February and July 2009 to promote Talbots and J. Jill. SmartReply’s telemarketing campaigns delivered 40- to 60-second recordings that advertised special sales and offers to consumers who had bought merchandise from Talbots’ companies during the previous year. The messages in these campaigns were drafted by SmartReply and then approved by Talbots. During the seven campaigns, SmartReply made at least 3.4 million robocalls to consumers. The FTC’s complaint details how the companies’ robocall campaigns failed to comply with the Telemarketing Sales Rule. First, the Rule requires that telemarketers give consumers a way to “opt out” of future calls immediately after the message states who the seller is, what they are selling, and the purpose of the call. SmartReply’s robocalls, however, required consumers to listen to almost all of the prerecorded sales pitch for Talbots or J. Jill before informing them that they could interrupt the call. Some messages contained no instructions on how consumers could be added to the do-not-call list and, instead, stated that pressing the prompt would ensure that the consumer would continue to receive prerecorded telemarketing messages. Second, the Telemarketing Sales Rule requires telemarketers to disconnect a call immediately when a consumer chooses an opt-out mechanism. But when consumers tried to use their telephone keypad to be placed on Talbots’ do-not-call list, they were instead connected to another recorded ad, before they were asked to press another prompt to get on the company’s do-not-call list. Third, when a robocall message is played to a live person, rather than to an answering machine, the Telemarketing Sales Rule requires that the message inform the person listening to the message that he or she can request to be placed on a company’s do-not-call list at any time during the call. Instead, SmartReply’s messages for Talbots did not inform consumers that they could opt out until the end of the ad pitch. Under the orders settling the FTC’s charges, Talbots and SmartReply are both subject to a $112,000 civil penalty. Talbots will pay the full penalty and SmartReply will pay $49,000, with the remainder of the penalty stayed due to its inability to pay. The Commission vote approving the complaints and orders was 4-0. The proposed orders require approval by the courts. The complaint and proposed final settlement order regarding Talbots were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the complaint and proposed final settlement order regarding SmartReply was filed in Central District of California. The Department of Justice filed both actions on the FTC’s behalf on April 26, 2010. Although delivering prerecorded phone messages without consumers’ written authorization is now prohibited under FTC restrictions that became effective September 1, 2009, prior to this date the FTC allowed prerecorded calls to recent customers if the messages met certain requirements that are designed to ensure that consumers are able to make do-not-call requests during both automated and live calls. Today’s cases continue the FTC’s work to enforce rules related to robocalls. In the past year, the agency has brought cases against robocallers pitching fraudulent auto warranties and credit card interest-rate reduction plans. NOTE: The Commission issues or files 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 named parties have violated the law. These stipulated final orders are for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Stipulated final orders require approval by the court and have the force of law when signed by the judge. Copies of the complaints and proposed stipulated final orders are available from 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 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 1,800 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 .

See more here:
Women’s Clothing Retailer Talbots and its Telemarketer to Pay Total of $161,000 for Violating FTC’s Robocall ‘Opt-Out’ Requirements

Helping Hands of Hope Telemarketers Barred from Falsely Telling Consumers That Proceeds from the Sale of Household Goods Will Benefit Charities or the Disabled

April 9th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Complaint Brought as Part of 2008′s “Operation Tele-Phoney” Law Enforcement Sweep An Arizona-based telemarketing operation that identified itself as “Helping Hands of Hope” has settled charges that it conned consumers into buying household items such as light bulbs and trash bags that were priced substantially higher than at retail, by falsely promising the proceeds would benefit charities or the disabled. The defendants will be permanently barred from such fraudulent conduct and from calling consumers who have asked not to be called. According to the FTC’s complaint, filed in May 2008 as part of the “Operation Tele-Phoney” multi-agency law enforcement sweep against telemarketing fraud, the Helping Hands of Hope defendants used telemarketing to target consumers nationwide, including many who were elderly. In addition to making false promises, Helping Hands’ telemarketers harassed consumers who resisted buying products, sent consumers products they never ordered, and then claimed that they had, in fact, ordered them, the complaint alleged. Finally, the FTC charged that Helping Hands’ telemarketers violated the National Do Not Call Registry rules by calling consumers even after they had asked not to be called again. The court order settles the FTC’s charges against Helping Hands of Hope, Inc.; U.S. Blind Services, Inc.; Employment Opportunities of America, Inc.; Third Strike Employment, Inc.; and Robyn Mayhan. It prohibits the defendants from misrepresenting, or assisting anyone else in misrepresenting, that: a consumer’s purchase will benefit handicapped or disabled people; anyone working for the companies is handicapped or disabled; any of the companies’ products are made or packaged by the handicapped or disabled; or that any company operates a charitable organization. The order also bars the defendants from mailing or billing consumer for any merchandise they did not order. Further, Helping Hands and the other defendants are prohibited from violating the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, including calling any number that is on the National Do Not Call Registry, calling consumers who have asked not to be called again, and failing to pay the annual fee required to access the Registry. Finally, the order imposes a judgment of $26.3 million against all of the defendants. The corporate defendants will turn over assets worth more than $60,000 in partial satisfaction of the judgment. The judgment against Mayhan, the companies’ president, has been suspended based on her inability to pay. She will have to pay the full amount if she is later found to have misrepresented her financial condition. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file agreed-upon final order in consent of the court action was 4-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, on April 1, 2010, and entered by the Court on April 6, 2010. NOTE: This stipulated final order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. A stipulated final order requires approval by the court and has the force of law when signed by the judge. Copies of the stipulated final order are available from 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 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 1,800 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 .

Excerpt from:
Helping Hands of Hope Telemarketers Barred from Falsely Telling Consumers That Proceeds from the Sale of Household Goods Will Benefit Charities or the Disabled

Midland Funding Loses to Consumer – 8.1 Million Dollar Judgment

April 6th, 2010. Published under Scams. No Comments.

What a day for consumer that get sued by junk debt collectors. Midland Funding is one of the most aggressive junk debt buyers in the US (in my opinion). From the stories I have read and in email communications with readers, Midland Funding’s collectors seem to have no problem violating federal laws to collect a debt. Also from the email’s I have received the attorney’s that Midland pays to sue consumers have no problem manufacturing documents and trying their best to overwhelm consumers in court with questionable documentation of debts. It’s so good to see that juries and judges are smacking Midland Funding right where it hurts. In the wallet. At courthouses across the United States, it has become increasingly common during the economic downturn for lawsuits to be filed against consumers to collect old debts. Lawyers who specialize in the practice are filing thousands of suits on behalf of large firms that have acquired debts from other companies. Although most people don’t fight the suits and lose them by default, a Dallas woman bucked the trend last October. Chrystal A. Snow challenged the validity of a $9,000 debt in a Dallas County Court-at-Law and countersued the debt collector for making improper phone calls, her attorney Ross Teter said. In a case that has received no media attention, Snow won her suit against Midland Funding LLC and the jury hearing the case awarded her $8.1 million — $250 for actual damages, $100,000 for mental anguish and $8 million in punitive damages, he said. “The jury made a finding she did not owe the debt,” Teter said in a phone interview. “We argued that they violated the Texas Fair Debt Collection Act by making harassing phone calls and the jury agreed.” Midland Funding is a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, a company whose primary business is the acquisition and collection of “charged-off consumer receivable portfolios,” according to its 2009 annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. ~ Watching the Watchers Read the full story , this is indeed a win for all consumers.

Read the original:
Midland Funding Loses to Consumer – 8.1 Million Dollar Judgment

New Jersey-Based Telephone Fundraisers Banned from Soliciting Donations; Will Pay $18.8 Million for Violating FTC Order

April 3rd, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Defendants Deceived Consumers into Believing All Donations Would Help Local Police, Firefighters, Veterans The operators of a New Jersey-based telemarketing scheme will pay a record $18.8 million and leave the charitable donation business to settle charges that they violated a Federal Trade Commission order by misleading consumers to believe that they were donating directly to legitimate charities serving police, firefighters, and veterans, when in fact only a small slice of the donations actually went to these charities. The civil penalty against Civic Development Group, LLC; CDG Management LLC; and owners Scott Pasch and David Keezer is the largest ever in an FTC consumer protection case.

Constructive Notice of Jurisdiction – Catanese and Wells and CyberDefender Corporation

March 30th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

This is a constructive notice that personal jurisdiction over Allen Harkleroad and corporate jurisdiction of GMP Services falls within the state of Georgia. By accessing GMP Services Inc owned websites constitutes your acceptance of our terms of service which dictate jurisdiction of any legal claims. All claims much be filed in the Georgia state court, Bulloch County or US District court, Georgia Southern District. Website terms of service are clearly displayed on all websites owned by GMP Services, Inc of Statesboro Georgia. GMP Services Inc, has insufficient ties to the state of California to afford the state of California of any jurisdiction over myself or GMP Services Inc. Any litigation filed outside of personal and corporate jurisdiction will be moved to the proper jurisdiction and defended and counter-claims will be filed against all parties involved. Mr. Hume, Mr. Catanese you have two choices, file suit against GMP Services Inc and/or Allen Harkleroad in the proper jurisdiction or issue a retraction for the letter send to GMP Services dated March 24, 2010. If you fail to comply with my demand for a retraction of your letter I will take measures to ensure that you and your client never in the future harass myself or GMP Services Inc. Failure to respond to this email or previous emails will constitute acceptance that a retraction will be forthcoming and that the law firm of Catanese and Wells accepts such constructive notice and will in the future abstain from any contact with Allen Harkleroad and/or GMP Services Inc. Have you ever touched a hot stove and said “Damn, I’ll never to that again”? There is good reason why I am called the most dangerous consumer in America. Rest assured, unless I receive my written retraction, I will make an example of Catanese & Wells and CyberDefender Corporation.

Direct Marketing Associates Corp Settles FTC Charges; Falsely Told Consumers They Were Pre-Approved for Auto Loans

March 30th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

A marketing company that solicits prospective customers for automobile dealers has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it falsely told low-income and “credit-challenged” consumers that they were pre-approved for auto loans and improperly obtained their names from a consumer reporting agency. According to the FTC, the company prepared sales solicitations for automobile dealers telling consumers that a specific finance company would lend them money to buy a car, but the finance companies featured in the ads lacked business licenses and didn’t actually make any loans. The marketing company obtained lists of consumers from a credit reporting agency by falsely representing that the lists would be used to make prescreened firm offers of credit to consumers. The settlement order bars the company and its principal from telling consumers they are pre-approved for, or are likely to receive, an extension of credit or financing unless the defendants know that a lender can make good on the offer for all eligible customers. The order also prohibits the defendants from obtaining credit reports from consumer reporting agencies without a purpose authorized by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The order imposes a $157,000 civil penalty that is suspended based on the defendants’ inability to pay. The full judgment will be imposed if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The defendants are Direct Marketing Associates Corp. and its president and owner, John M. Rainey, Jr. The Commission vote to authorize staff to refer the complaint and proposed stipulated final order to the Department of Justice for filing was 4-0. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division. NOTE: The Commission files 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. A complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge. 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 1,800 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 here:
Direct Marketing Associates Corp Settles FTC Charges; Falsely Told Consumers They Were Pre-Approved for Auto Loans

Loan Pitchman James Nicholson Permanently Banned from Telemarketing

March 30th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Loan Pitchman Permanently Banned from Telemarketing Consumers Charged Up-Front Fee for Supposed General-Use Credit Card The telemarketing business will be permanently off limits to a deceptive pitchman whom the Federal Trade Commission sued last year for allegedly tricking consumers into paying hundreds of dollars for a credit card that could only be used to buy merchandise from his companies’ Web sites. Under a settlement order with the FTC, pitchman James Nicholson and a group of companies he controls have settled FTC charges related to an advance-fee credit card scam and a bogus advance-fee interest-rate reduction/debt negotiation program, as well as allegations that they debited consumer bank accounts without permission, failed to tell consumers they would not be able to get a refund, and illegally called consumers whose names were on the National Do Not Call Registry. Under the settlement order, Nicholson and his companies will pay more than $200,000. The FTC filed a complaint in 2009 charging Nicholson and several of his businesses with using deceptive telemarketing pitches since 2006 to offer consumers with poor or no credit a general-use credit card in exchange for an up-front fee of as much as $250. Telemarketers working for Nicholson’s chief company, Group One Network, also claimed that consumers would get access to a significant line of credit that could be used for cash advances, and that their payment histories would be reported to the three major credit bureaus. In reality, consumers who paid the fee received an online shopping card they could only use to buy products from Group One’s Web sites, they could not get cash advances, and their credit histories were never reported to the credit bureaus. In April 2009, the FTC filed an amended complaint naming four more companies and adding new allegations relating to the deceptive telemarketing of a bogus advance-fee interest-rate reduction/debt negotiation program by a business operating as Credit First Financial Solutions. The FTC’s amended complaint alleged that Nicholson’s telemarketers, among other things, falsely represented that in exchange for an up-front fee, they could lower consumers’ interest rates by negotiating with consumers’ creditors; would provide consumers a minimum savings of $1,500 to $20,000 within the first 30 days of their enrollment; and would provide a full refund if they failed to achieve the promised savings. The settlement announced today bans Nicholson, a repeat offender who pleaded guilty to wire fraud in connection with fraudulent telemarketing in 1995, from telemarketing and from selling advance-fee loans or credit cards. It also bans him from assisting anyone in telemarketing or marketing such loans. Furthermore, the settlement prohibits Nicholson and his companies from misleading consumers about credit-related goods or services, or any other goods or services they market. Finally, the order imposes a $17.2 million judgment against all the defendants, which has been suspended based on their inability to pay the full amount. However, Nicholson will turn over a 31-foot power boat, his Nissan Pathfinder, and jewelry and art valued at more than $10,000. The other defendants will turn over more than $200,000 in cash and other assets. The settlement resolves the FTC’s charges against: Group One Networks, Inc., doing business as (d/b/a) Credit Line Gold Card, The USA Workers, TheUSAWork.com, and TheUSAWorkers.com; US Gold Line, LLC, d/b/a USGoldLine.com, Gainsway Credit, and GainswayCredit.com; My Online Credit Store, LLC d/b/a MyOnlineCreditStore.com, MYOnlinecr.com, Diamond Executive, NewECredit, and NewECredit.com; James Nicholson, individually and as president of Group One Networks, Inc., and manager of US Gold Line, LLC and My Online Credit Store, LLC; Credit First Financial Solution, LLC; Group One Administrative, Inc.; Tall Pines Administrative Services, LLC; and Sun Coast Data Services, LLC. Brett Fisher, the chief executive officer of Group One Networks, Inc., and manager of US Gold Line, LLC and My Online Credit Store, LLC, settled similar FTC charges in December 2009. He agreed to a court order banning him from selling advance-fee credit cards and from violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The order against Fisher also imposed a $17.2 million judgment, which was suspended based on his inability to pay. He has turned over $21,000 in cash to the FTC. The FTC vote authorizing the staff to file stipulated final the order against all the Group One Networks defendants was 4-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, on March 17, 2010, and entered on March 18, 2010. The FTC complaints amending the original complaint and approving the settlement order against Fisher were both 4-0. The amended complaint was filed in court on April 14, 2009, and the court entered the Fisher order on January 12, 2010. The FTC received invaluable assistance in this matter from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the University of Central Florida Police Department, Largo Police Department, and the Better Business Bureau of West Florida, Inc. NOTE: This stipulated final order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. A stipulated final order requires approval by the court and has the force of law when signed by the judge. Copies of the stipulated final order are available from 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 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 1,800 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 .

Go here to see the original:
Loan Pitchman James Nicholson Permanently Banned from Telemarketing

Live On-Air Interview Tonight with the Author of Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors Book

March 25th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Allen Harkleroad, the author of “Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors, will be live on the on air tonight for a radio interview on KSVY – 91.3 FM Sonoma, CA, the GUYS@5Thursday show, to promote his latest consumer book “Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors”.

The Citizens Amendment – Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

March 22nd, 2010. Published under Scams. No Comments.

I am not sure who wrote this but it makes sense and needs to be shared with all Americans. For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress.

Beware of Debt Collection Scam Phone Calls

March 22nd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

There has been a lot of news and complaints about fake debt collectors scamming unwary consumers or non-existent debts. Any time a debt collector calls you and demands money over the phone, tell them to put the demand in writing. No matter how many times they call, tell them the same thing, be adamant. If they are scammers they’ll eventually give up. If they are abusive real collectors eventually they’ll get the message that their tactics aren’t going to work. Often the scammers will tell you that unless you pay them you will be put in jail and then require you to use Western Union or other wire service to pay them. Never pay a debt whether real or imagined using a money transfer service. Never give financial any financial information over the phone to any sort of collections company, no matter what. Especially cold callers that demand money. If in doubt just hang up. Block the number if possible or let it go to voice mail. You aren’t required by law to talk to a debt collector, and that goes double for scammers. Hopefully they’ll leave threats on your answering machine that can be used as evidence. Be savvy, don’t give in and tell them to put it in writing.

See original here:
Beware of Debt Collection Scam Phone Calls

Is Google News and Yahoo Buzz Filtering Some Company Names from their Indexes?

March 21st, 2010. Published under Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

I have a deep suspicion that some companies and organizations are paying Google and Yahoo to filter their names from the Google News and Yahoo Buzz News indexes. On several of the websites that my company owns the news is picked up by Google News. And we submit items to Yahoo Buzz and other social news websites. On more than one occasion I have found that news items containing certain company names are not pulled by Google News, while the items before and after are. On Yahoo Buzz it won’t allow us to use certain company names in the title and description, however if we abbreviate the company name or remove it then the item is accepted. Company names I have had problems with: DELL, ACA International, Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc as well as several others that I may publicize at a later date. I suspect that these companies are paying to prevent (or to censor) the news and both Google and Yahoo are profiting from it. So much for fair and balanced news… EXAMPLE

Read the rest here:
Is Google News and Yahoo Buzz Filtering Some Company Names from their Indexes?

Actual Debt Collectors Violating the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act

March 11th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud. No Comments.

Debt collectors violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDPCA) all the time. It’s time to name and shame a couple of them. Of course I reported these to the Federal Trade Commission ( www.ftc.gov ) but to date the FTC hasn’t done diddle about them. First we have “Agent Washington” of UCB (United Collection Bureau) claiming to be a law enforcement officer, claiming to have paperwork in the Bulloch County State Attorneys Office First off credit card debt is a civil matter, not criminal. Everything about this phone call are multiple violations of the FDCPA. Listen to my conversation with Agent Washington (MP3 format). She even called my next door neighbor while I was talking with the idiot. If I knew then what I knew now I would have owned United Collection Bureau. Next up is West Management claiming Fraud Charges. The caller claims to be

Beware of calls from 206-337-9266 – Big Money ATM Scammers

March 11th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

I hate automated messages left on my answering machine. Last night I received a call from 206-337-9266 asking me if I needed money now. The message left by the scammers smelled all too much like a typical get rich quick scam. In the message they left a domain name (Big Money ATM .Com – i put spaces in it to prevent accidently hyperlinking). I pulled the domain registration for the domain and of course it is a private registration that hides the owners true identity. If the caller and owner were legitimate the domain “who is” record would display the actual owners. the scammers use GoDaddy registration and hosting services. It figures. Most of the email scams and robo-caller phone scams I see or hear all point back to GoDaddy.com hosting and domain registration services. If you get a call from 206-337-9266, report them to the Federal Trade Commission ( www.ftc.gov ). Maybe one day GoDaddy will actually enforce their terms of service and boot scammers like this.

Here is the original post:
Beware of calls from 206-337-9266 – Big Money ATM Scammers

Live On-Air Radio Interview with the Author of Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors Book

March 7th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

Just a quick note that I (Allen Harkleroad) have an on-air radio interview on KSVY – 91.3 FM Sonoma, CA, the GUYS@5Thursday show, to promote my latest consumer book “Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors”.

Evidently I am a Creditor for the Now Defunct Debt Collector Mann Bracken LLC

March 5th, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Scams. No Comments.

I received a letter today from the receiver of the now defunct debt collector Mann Bracken LLC. I am assuming I am receiving the notice below because I filed a lawsuit against Mann Bracken for multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). I am in discussions with a consumer protection attorney on how to proceed and file a claim against the estate of Mann Bracken, LLC (702 King Farm Boulevard, Rockville Maryland). If nothing else it is good to know the tables are turned and Mann Bracken is out of business for good.

Read the original here:
Evidently I am a Creditor for the Now Defunct Debt Collector Mann Bracken LLC

Debt Collectors Will Pay More Than $1 Million to Settle FTC Charges – Credit Bureau Collection Services

March 3rd, 2010. Published under Business Scams, Fraud, Scams. No Comments.

Another unethical debt collector gets smacked by the Federal Trade Commission — A nationwide debt collector has agreed to pay a civil fine of more than $1 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated federal law by inaccurately reporting credit information and pressing consumers to pay debts they often did not owe. According to the FTC’s complaint, the company and two of its officers illegally tried to collect invalid debts and reported them to the credit reporting agencies without noting that consumers disputed them. In addition, even after receiving information from consumers that a debt was paid off or did not belong to the consumer, the company continued to assert, no longer with a reasonable basis, that the consumer owed the debt, without trying to confirm or dispute the consumer’s information, in violation of the FTC Act. The FTC charged that the company, Credit Bureau Collection Services, and two of its officers, Larry Ebert and Brian Striker, violated the FTC Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The company also is charged with violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by reporting information to credit agencies that consumers had proved was inaccurate, failing to inform to the credit agencies that consumers had disputed the debts, and failing to investigate after receiving a notice of dispute from a credit reporting agency. In addition to imposing the $1.1 million civil penalty on the company, the settlement order: Bars the defendants from further violations; Prohibits them from making unsupported statements to collect a debt or obtain information about a consumer; Bars them from making claims that a debt is owed or about the amount, without a reasonable basis; Requires the defendants, when a debt is questionable or a consumer questions it, to either close the account and end collection efforts or investigate the dispute. If they cannot show that the consumer owes a debt, they cannot sell the debt or provide it to any business other than the original client; and Bars the company from re-reporting information to credit reporting agencies that it had voluntarily deleted from credit reporting before December 2008. The Commission vote to authorize staff to refer the complaint and consent decree to the Department of Justice for filing was 4-0. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The Commission recently released a video for consumers who are facing debt collection . The video is at www.ftc.gov/MoneyMatters , a site that includes information for consumers on managing credit, dealing with debt, and a variety of other financial topics. 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. Consent decrees are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Consent decrees are subject to court approval and have the force of law when signed by the judge. 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 1,700 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 .

Go here to see the original:
Debt Collectors Will Pay More Than $1 Million to Settle FTC Charges – Credit Bureau Collection Services

May 2012
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Apr
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

Tag Archives: consumers

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Popular Searches

Search

Categories

Recent Posts