Permanent Ban Plus $17 Million Monetary Judgment for Debt Relief Scammers, Says FTC
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.08.23
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sued three operators, Sean Austin, John Steven Huffman, John Preston Thompson, and their affiliated companies last year for falsely promising to eliminate or substantially reduce credit card debt for consumers. These companies operated under several names, including ACRO Services, American Consumer Rights Organization, Consumer Protection Resources, Reliance Solutions, Thacker & Associates, and Tri Star Consumer Group.
Since 2019, Austin, Huffman, and Thompson, as alleged by the FTC, have operated a network of companies incorporated in Tennessee, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming that have worked together to support their deceptive credit card debt relief scheme. The alleged deceptive and unlawful tactics included deceptive telemarketing, false promises of debt relief and deceptive upfront fee charges. According to the FTC, the schemers made tens of millions of dollars from the upfront enrollment fees. Even worse, consumers who signed up for the services were told to stop making payments to their credit card companies, but not informed of the severe consequences of such non-payments.
The stipulated final judgments require that the operators be permanently banned from advertising, selling, or assisting in any debt relief product or services, or participating in telemarketing. The orders also contain total monetary relief in the amount of $17,486,080.
Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, commented that “[w]ith credit card delinquencies surging, the FTC will continue to take aggressive action against those who prey on struggling consumers.”
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.29.25
President Trump Issues Executive Order Deprioritizing Disparate Impact Theory of Discrimination
On April 23, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, declaring it the policy of the United States “to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.” The order reasons that “disparate impact liability all but requires individuals and businesses to consider race and engage in racial balancing to avoid potentially crippling legal liability.”
Client Alert | 6 min read | 04.28.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.28.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.25.25