FTC Sues Debt Collector Over Alleged Deceptive Practices

​On November 4, 2024, the FTC​ an​nounced ​that it had filed suit against a ​Georgia-based debt collector​ for engaging in allegedly deceptive and abusive​ debt collection practices, in violation of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, and its associated Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. Part 1006, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLB Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 6821. ​

According to the FTC’s complaint​ filed in the Northern District of Georgia​, the company allegedly ​engaged in a scheme to improperly collect debts that consumers did not owe, or that the company did not have the authority to collect.​ The FTC alleges that the company repeatedly called consumers or their family members​​ regarding a purported “​legal matter”, and routinely did not disclose its status as a debt collector. The FTC further alleges that in many instances, the company falsely represented itself as a mediation company to consumers, or represented that it possessed certain ​priva​te information about consumers in order to convince consumers of the legitimacy of the debt collection. The FTC alleges that​ the company then falsely threatened consumers with legal action or arrest if the purported debt was not paid.​​ The FTC asserts that in many of these instances, the consumers did not owe the debt or the company was not authorized to collect it. ​The FTC contends that the company has collected over $4.5 million from consumers ​since 2021 through the alleged scheme.​​

On the same day that the suit was filed, a Georgia Northern District Court judge granted ​the FTC’s request for a temporary restraining order, enjoining the company from misrepresenting the status of any debt or its authority to collect to any consumer​​​, threatening to take any unlawful action​, or ​using any false or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain personal consumer information, ​​and freezing all of the company’s assets.​ The Court’s temporary order will expire after fourteen days. The FTC seeks a permanent injunction restraining the company from future violations of consumer finance law, as well as unspecified monetary relief.​​​​