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 | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development

