Telemarketers, Payment Processor to Pay $1.7 Million to FTC

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

May 26, 2015

payment-processorLast Tuesday, a federal court in Orlando issued its final order in a years-long legal battle between the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC” or “Commission”), a number of telemarketers and their payment processor. The ruling follows an order late last year that granted the Commission’s motion for summary judgment against all remaining participants in the allegedly deceptive robocall credit card interest rate reduction venture.

Which of the defendants’ alleged marketing, debt relief and payment processor activities caught the FTC’s attention?

Debt Relief and Telemarketing Practices

According to the Commission, the defendants marketed their credit card interest rate reduction services to consumers throughout the country through use of prerecorded telemarketing calls. The FTC alleged that the subject defendants often claimed that their interest rate reduction services would provide savings of $2,500 or more and enable consumers to pay off their debt three to five times faster. During or immediately following these calls, the defendants purportedly charged consumers a fee of up to $1,500 for debt relief services.

Originally filed in October 2012, the Commission’s lawsuit accused the defendants of conducting unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of the FTC Act by:

  • Misrepresenting that consumers would save money, lower their credit card interest rates and pay off their debts faster by purchasing their debt relief services;
  • Misrepresenting that consumers would not be charged fees until after services had been performed; and
  • Submitting billing information for payment without consumers’ express informed consent.

Additionally, the FTC alleged that the marketing defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) by:

  • Making telemarketing calls that delivered a prerecorded message without each consumer’s express informed consent;
  • Making outbound calls to telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call registry;
  • Failing to pay fees associated with access to the National Do-Not-Call registry;
  • Failing to honor consumers’ do-not-call requests; and
  • Failing to disclose the identity of the seller, the marketing purpose of the call and/or the nature of the services offered.

Payment Processor Services

The FTC expanded its lawsuit in June 2013 to include eight new defendants, including a payment processor that the Commission states assisted in the alleged fraud. Payment processors, such as the defendant Universal Processing Services of Wisconsin, LLC d/b/a Newtek Merchant Solutions (“Newtek”), are entities that process credit or debit card transactions between merchants and consumers.

According to the FTC, Newtek and its president Derek Depuydt committed separate violations of the TSR by assisting and facilitating the other defendants’ purportedly unlawful telemarketing activities.

Defendants Agree to $1.7 Million Judgment and Long-Term Bans

Although most of the defendants had already agreed to enter into settlement, the Florida federal court granted an FTC motion for summary judgment against Newtek and the remaining two telemarketing defendants Hal E. Smith and HES Merchant Services Company, Inc. (“HES”) in November 2014.

With last Tuesday’s final order, all three remaining defendants are jointly and severally liable for the $1.7 million judgment. Additionally, Smith and HES received 20-year bans on robocalling and marketing debt relief products or services, while Newtek is permanently prohibited from processing payments for a wide range of clients.

Telemarketers and Payment Processors Take Heed

As this matter demonstrates, significant regulatory action awaits non-compliant telemarketers – and the parties who work closely with them. These businesses should familiarize themselves with applicable regulations and maintain a strict regimen of compliance standards.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic, or if you have been served with legal process relating to your debt relief, telemarketing or payment process or practices, please e-mail us at info@kleinmoynihan.com or call us at (212) 246-0900.

The material contained herein is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney. Each situation is unique, and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney.

Attorney Advertising

Related Blog Posts:

FTC Sues Debt Relief Business for False Advertising

“Debt Relief” Robocalling Telemarketers Settle with FTC

FTC Sues Companies and Officers For Alleged Phony Debt Relief Scheme

David O. Klein

David O. Klein

David Klein is one of the most recognized attorneys in the telemarketing, technology, Internet marketing, sweepstakes and telecommunications fields. Skilled at counseling clients on a broad range of technology-related matters, David Klein has substantial experience in negotiating and drafting complex licensing, marketing and Internet agreements.

Schedule a Call
In The Know

Trending Topics

New York Sweepstakes Law blog- Klein Moynihan Turco

New York Sweepstakes Law: Are You Compliant?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In general, a lottery exists when entrants pay for the chance to win a prize. States alone reserve the right to administer lotteries. Businesses can eliminate one element of what would otherwise be an illegal lottery, in order to transform it into a legal promotional game. If the requirement to

TCPA surveys

An Ad or not an Ad: NY Weighs in on TCPA Surveys

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Another day, another court decision that refines constitutes a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) unsolicited fax advertisement. A Manhattan-based federal court recently issued a decision that removes faxed invitations to participate in a survey from the TCPA definition of advertisement. In drawing this distinction for TCPA surveys, the Court held

NY sports gambling law- Klein Moynihan Turco

Agreement Reached to Enact NY Sports Gambling Law

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This week, Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Legislature agreed to a budget deal that will bring mobile sports betting to the State through a unique NY sports gambling law.  Upon the Governor’s signature, NY sports gambling is primed to become the nation’s largest market. However, New York

UK and US Social Media Influencer Laws

UK and US Social Media Influencer Laws

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In September of 2020, the United Kingdom’s (“UK”) Committee of Advertising Practice (“CAP”) reviewed the Instagram accounts of 122 UK-based social media influencers to determine whether content was being properly flagged as advertising in accordance with applicable social media influencer laws. This past March, the UK Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”)

Running a Telemarketing Business?

Get a Free Compliance Review From an Experienced TCPA Lawyer.

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin