Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 22 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-641

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BOOSTMYSCORE LLC, formerly known as Boost My Score dot Net, LLC, and also doing 

business as BoostMyScore.net, 

BMS, INC., also doing business as BoostMyScore.net, and 

WILLIAM O. AIRY, individually and as an officer of BoostMyScore LLC and BMS, Inc., 

Defendants. 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 

Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), for its Complaint alleges: 

1. The FTC brings this action under Sections 13(b) and 19 of the Federal Trade Commission 

Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 57b, Section 410(b) of the Credit Repair Organizations 

Act (“CROA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1679h(b), and Section 6(b) of the Telemarketing and Consumer 

Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (“Telemarketing Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 6105(b), to obtain 

permanent injunctive relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of 

monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief for Defendants’ acts or 

practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), multiple provisions of 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 22 

CROA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1679-1679j, and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), 16 C.F.R. 

Part 310, in connection with the marketing and sale of credit repair services. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), 

and 1345. 

3. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(1), and 

(c)(2), and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 

PLAINTIFF 

4. The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government created by 

statute. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58. The FTC enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. 

The FTC also enforces CROA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1679-1679j, which prohibits untrue or misleading 

representations to induce the purchase of credit repair services, requires certain affirmative 

disclosures in the offering or sale of credit repair services, and prohibits credit service 

organizations from charging or receiving money or other valuable consideration for the 

performance of credit repair services before such services are fully performed. The FTC also 

enforces the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108. Pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, 

the FTC promulgated and enforces the TSR, 16 C.F.R. Part 310, which prohibits deceptive and 

abusive telemarketing acts or practices. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 22 

DEFENDANTS 

5. Defendant BoostMyScore LLC (“Boost”), formerly known as Boost My Score 

dot Net, LLC, and also doing business as BoostMyScore.net, is a Colorado limited liability 

company with its principal place of business at 7900 E. Union Avenue, Suite 1005A, Denver, 

CO 80237. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Boost 

has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold credit repair services to consumers throughout the 

United States. Boost transacts or has transacted business in this District and throughout the 

United States. 

6. Defendant BMS, Inc. (“BMS”), also doing business as BoostMyScore.net, is a 

Colorado corporation with its principal place of business at 7900 E. Union Avenue, Suite 1005A, 

Denver, CO 80237. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with 

others, BMS has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold credit repair services to consumers 

throughout the United States. BMS transacts or has transacted business in this District and 

throughout the United States. 

7. Defendant William O. Airy is the founder, manager, registered agent, and Chief 

Executive Officer of Boost and the incorporator, registered agent, and President of BMS. He is 

the principal operator of both Boost and BMS, and is an authorized signatory on Defendants’ 

bank accounts. He is also listed as the registrant and contact person for Defendants’ Internet 

websites. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, he has 

formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and 

practices set forth in this Complaint. Defendant Airy resides in this District and, in connection 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 22 

with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this District and 

throughout the United States. 

COMMON ENTERPRISE 

8. Defendants Boost and BMS (collectively, “Corporate Defendants”) have operated 

as a common enterprise while engaging in the deceptive acts and practices and other violations 

of law alleged below. Corporate Defendants have conducted the business practices described 

below through interrelated companies that have common ownership, officers, managers, business 

functions, employees, and office locations, and that have commingled funds. Because these 

Corporate Defendants have operated as a common enterprise, each of them is jointly and 

severally liable for the acts and practices alleged below. Defendant Airy has formulated, 

directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices of the 

Corporate Defendants that constitute the common enterprise. 

COMMERCE 

9. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants have maintained a substantial 

course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 44. 

DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 

10. Since at least 2007, Defendants have operated an unlawful credit repair business 

that has deceived consumers across the country. Through websites, social media posts, 

telemarketing, and radio and print advertising, Defendants claim to help consumers manipulate 

their credit scores in order to gain access to mortgages, personal loans, and other credit for which 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 22 

the consumers would not otherwise qualify. Defendants deceptively assure consumers that such 

credit manipulation is not only legal but also protected by federal law. In the course of selling 

these services, Defendants make misleading or unsubstantiated claims about the results 

consumers can expect, fail to properly inform consumers of their rights, and charge unlawful 

advance fees of hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Defendants have generated more than 

$6,600,000 in revenue from this credit repair business since 2015. 

Background on Credit Scores 

11. Prospective creditors use credit scores as part of an underwriting process to assess 

whether to offer a consumer credit and to determine key terms of any such credit, including the 

interest rate and the credit limit. These scores are calculated using statistically-based credit risk 

evaluation systems, commonly known as credit scoring systems. Consumers do not have just 

one credit score: there are multiple different credit score providers and models, each of which 

may rely on different sources for credit file data and may use otherwise similar data in different 

ways. Credit score providers generally do not publicly disclose the weight they assign to 

different data categories, or how their scoring models may differ from those of other providers. 

12. Fair Isaac Corporation (“FICO”) is one of the largest providers of consumer credit 

scores. A consumer’s FICO score is a number between 300 and 850, with higher scores 

indicating greater creditworthiness. Consumers with higher FICO scores are more likely to 

receive credit, and on better terms, than consumers with lower FICO scores. In addition to its 

base versions, FICO also has industry-specific scoring models, and corresponding scores, for 

certain credit products, including mortgages. 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 22 

13. Most mortgage lenders use a FICO score when deciding whether to extend credit, 

and in setting the interest rate and other terms. In fact, since 2004, the Federal National 

Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie 

Mac) have required the use of FICO scores; no other credit score is currently permitted to be 

used in the issuance of a mortgage to be purchased by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. 

Defendants Deceive Consumers Regarding Credit Score Improvement 

14. On their website, in telemarketing calls, and elsewhere, Defendants claim that 

they can significantly improve consumers’ credit scores by adding “tradelines”— other people’s 

credit card accounts—to consumers’ credit histories. For a “One-Time Flat Fee,” Defendants 

offer to register consumers as “additional authorized users” on one or several credit cards held by 

unrelated account holders with positive payment histories—a practice known as credit 

piggybacking. Defendants claim piggybacking will result in the positive payment history 

associated with the card being reflected on the paying consumer’s credit history, and that this 

will, in turn, significantly increase the consumer’s credit score. 

15. For example, Defendants’ website, boostmyscore.net, has made the following 

statements about credit score improvement: 

• “We have discovered a way to legally add positive history to your credit report . . 

. which drastically and immediately improves your credit score.” 

• “the amazing benefit of having that particular credit card’s entire credit card 

‘copied and pasted’ on to your credit report . . . gives you the biggest possible 

FICO® score boost in less than 60 days; and it’s guaranteed!” 

• Boost My Score “deliver[s] an astonishing boost to your FICO® Score . . . . 

Guaranteed!” 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 22 

• “the biggest possible FICO® score boost in less than 60 days, guaranteed!” 

• “adding an AU [Authorized User] tradeline to your credit report will help and . . . 

the Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO®) can’t stop us.” 

Defendants’ promotional materials have also included the following claims: 

• “Credit piggybacking typically provides a credit boost of more than 100 points for 

clients of BoostMyScore with the major consumer credit reporting agencies. In 

fact, the average customer realizes a boost of about 120 points within a month or 

two.” 

• “Most of the people we work with see an improvement of about 120 points within 

4 to 6 weeks . . . .” 

• “voila . . . up goes your credit score! The amount of increase varies, but many of 

our customers realize a jump of about 120 points in as little as two weeks.” 

• “a huge FICO score leap in under 60 days – guaranteed” 

• “At BoostMyScore, we understand the power of a 750-plus FICO®. That’s why 

we offer premium creditbuilding services formerly unavailable to the general 

public. The wealthy have long used this technique to help them get wealthier. 

Now it’s available to you. A 750+ FICO® score could qualify you for below 

prime interest rates on mortgages, car loans, personal loans and business loans.” 

• “My Credit Score increased 127pts. [to] 758 | Having Good Credit Feels Good! 

Let us help you reach your credit score goal... Call us now” 

• “HOW TO HACK YOUR CREDIT SCORE | What is a tradeline? Steroids 

straight into the heart of your credit score... Adding a high quality ‘tradeline’ is 

the most effective way to quickly boost your credit score. Through a process 

called ‘tradeline renting’ or ‘credit piggybacking,’ you can overcome your credit 

woes.” 

16. Defendants’ website and other promotional materials invite consumers to call a 

toll-free telephone number for more information. When consumers call the number listed on 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 22 

Defendants’ marketing materials, they speak with representatives who make many of the same 

representations included on their website and in their promotional material. 

17. For example, Defendants’ sales guidance recommends the following response to 

consumers who ask how many points a given tradeline will improve their score: “The smallest 

boost I have ever seen from one card is 12 points. The largest boost I see happens fairly often 

and typically occurs when we add an old card to a credit report that is completely blank; I have 

seen those scores shoot up and over 820 with just one card. Seriously.” 

18. Defendants generally do not review consumers’ FICO scores during their 

customer intake process. Without detailed information about a consumer’s current FICO score 

and accurate credit history, as well as access to the credit scoring model itself, no credit repair 

organization can guarantee that the addition of a tradeline will improve the consumer’s FICO 

score by a specific amount within a specific time period. Moreover, recent versions of the FICO 

score have adjusted the weight of authorized user tradelines; as such, beginning with FICO Score 

8, which was first introduced to the market in January 2009, the impact of authorized user 

tradelines on a consumer’s overall score has been reduced. 

19. In numerous instances, Defendants’ credit repair services have not significantly 

improved consumers’ FICO scores. 

Defendants Deceive Consumers Regarding Obtaining Mortgages 

20. Defendants market their piggybacking service as a means for consumers to obtain 

a home mortgage. For example, Defendants have made the following claims: 

• Web advertisement: “Boost Your Credit Score To Help You Secure a Mortgage | 

Are you tired of paying rent every month and having nothing to show for it? We 

can help BOOST your score so that you can secure a mortgage and buy a home!” 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 22 

• Web advertisement: “It’s Summer Home-Buying Season! Let Us Help You Boost 

Your Score & Purchase a New Home! *Boost your credit score to qualify for a 

mortgage. . . . *Buy the dream home you’ve always wanted.” 

• Radio ad script: “Is your credit score holding you back from buying the house of 

your dreams . . . ? Boost My Score can help quickly boost your credit score and 

services are guaranteed to work in less than 60 days or your money back!” 

• Promotional materials: “ . . . many of our customers realize a jump of about 120 

points in as little as two weeks. What would a credit score increase of that size 

mean for you? If you are like most people, that could be the difference between 

having your mortgage application approved or not.” 

• Web advertisement: “Use Some of Your Tax Refunds to Boost Your Score & 

Purchase a New Home! *Boost your credit score to qualify for a mortgage. . . . 

*Buy the dream home you’ve always wanted.” 

• Press release: “For over 10 years, BoostMyScore has been successfully assisting 

clients across the country improve their credit scores, obtain mortgages, personal 

loans, business loans and lines of credit.” 

• Promotional materials: “BoostMyScore has assisted thousands of customers in 

improving their credit scores so they can obtain mortgages, and secure lines of 

credit and loans.” 

• Promotional quote from William O. Airy: “I launched BoostMyScore to help 

consumers safely and legally improve their credit scores to buy their first homes, 

start or expand a business, reduce debt and improve their lifestyles.” 

21. In numerous instances, consumers have sought Defendants’ credit repair services 

because they have wanted help obtaining mortgages. In numerous such instances, Defendants’ 

credit repair services have not helped consumers obtain mortgages. 

22. In fact, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together own or guarantee over half 

of home mortgages in the United States, direct underwriters to factor out authorized user 

tradelines added through credit piggybacking. Numerous other mortgage underwriting 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 22 

guidelines also require that piggybacked authorized user tradelines be factored out of a 

consumer’s credit history review. Once such tradelines are factored out, any effect they might 

have had on the mortgage approval process is lost. 

Defendants’ Course of Business Attempts to Mislead Creditors, Credit Reporting Agencies, 

and the Public 

23. Consumers who purchase Defendants’ services and are added as “authorized 

users” are not, in fact, authorized to use the credit accounts to which they have been added. 

These consumers do not receive a card for the account, and agree in their contract with 

Defendants that they will not attempt to place charges on the account or even contact the issuing 

financial institution. For example, Defendants have made the following statements: 

a. On their website, Defendants themselves note that consumers “cannot use the 

[added credit] account, cannot make any changes to it, nor do they have the 

responsibility to repay any balances that might be owed.” 

b. In their contracts with consumers, Defendants codify this restriction: the 

consumer “shall not make any attempt to secure a physical credit card for any 

account it acquires from Boost, nor will [the consumer] attempt to place a charge 

upon the account. [The consumer] will not attempt to contact the cardholder or 

the card issuing institution.” 

24. Despite informing consumers that they do not receive access to the account, 

Defendants nevertheless encourage consumers to represent to prospective creditors that they are, 

in fact, authorized users of those accounts. 

25. Moreover, Defendants advise the high credit-score cardholder-consumers whom 

they solicit to add to their accounts lower credit consumers as “authorized users” to take a 

number of steps to conceal their practices from their card-issuing institutions. For example, 

Defendants have made the following statement: 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 22 

“[W]hile speaking with call center employees. . . [i]f someone is being . . . overly 

inquisitive, and you feel they may be trying to uncover your motive of earning an income 

by renting out the AU [Authorized User] spots on your cards, you can simply tell them 

you have to run and will call them back later to complete your tasks. Then immediately 

hang up, without waiting for a response, because doing so usually closes out your account 

on their computer screen, reducing any chance they had of transferring you to another 

department or manager tasked with closing credit card accounts they assume are being 

utilized in this way.” 

26. Defendants’ practices have injured and continue to injure consumers. In 

numerous instances, Defendants’ services cost struggling consumers hundreds or thousands of 

dollars without significantly improving their FICO credit score as promised. Moreover, if 

Defendants succeed in artificially manipulating consumers’ credit scores, creditors may extend 

credit to consumers under false pretenses, adversely affecting the cost and availability of credit. 

27. Defendants also have represented that their piggybacking services are legal. 

Until contacted by the FTC in March 2019, Defendants’ website included a section purporting to 

describe “How It’s Legal,” including an assertion that “the Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal 

Trade Commission, and various Attorneys General have all looked into the practice in fine detail, 

and each have determined that the act of paying someone to add another person to their existing 

credit card account as an Authorized User is perfectly legal.” Defendants’ website continues to 

claim that “it is unlawful” and would “violate the law” for a prospective creditor to ignore 

piggybacked credit information, asserting that, “If a bank were to reject your loan application or 

artificially reduce your credit score” because of Defendants’ credit repair services, “they would 

likely be in violation of ECOA [the Equal Credit Opportunity Act] and liable to pay out damages 

through a civil claim.” Defendants also issued a press release in 2018 asserting that “[t]radeline 

credit repair has been deemed a legal practice by the Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal Trade 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Browse All Tradelines 

... 

.... 

::::· 

Make Your Select.ion 

... 

.... . .... 

:::· 

Submit Your Boost 

Form 

The Process 

... ..... 

::::• 

Receive Verifica t ion 

Call 

... 

iiii· 

... 

Make Payment Complete Online 

Profile 

:::· ... :::: . . 

Wait f or Your Boost 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 22 

Commission and the Better Business Bureau, and is protected by Regulation B of the Equal 

Credit Opportunity Act.” 

28. The FTC has never determined that credit piggybacking is legal. Furthermore, 

the Equal Credit Opportunity Act does not speak to, let alone protect, this practice. And in 

implementing ECOA’s prohibition against marital status discrimination, its associated 

Regulation B requires only that creditors consider authorized user information when the 

authorized user is the spouse of the account holder. See 12 C.F.R. § 1002.6(b)(6). Defendants’ 

credit piggybacking service pairs credit repair consumers with unrelated account holders, and as 

such, does not fall within the ambit of the protections of ECOA or Regulation B. 

Defendants Charge Illegal Advance Fees 

29. Before providing any of the promised credit repair services, Defendants require 

consumers to make an upfront payment, which they describe as a “One-Time Flat Fee.” 

Defendants charge consumers approximately $325 to $4,000 per tradeline, and Defendants often 

seek to sell consumers multiple tradelines at a time. 

30. Defendants’ website makes clear that payment is required before its purported 

credit repair services are fully performed. From boostmyscore.net/index.html: 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step #1 

Brov..rse our 

tradelines, select one 

or more, and 

checkout 

Step #2 

Receive a credit 

boost phone 

con.sulta ·an 

... 

t••· •:::• 

The Process 

Step #3 

Make payment for 

your .s e lected 

tra detlnes 

... 

!!:i• 

... 

Step #4 

Digita lly sign the 

lease agreement and 

upload identificat ion 

documents 

. ... 

. .:· .. 

Step #5 

The cardholder will 

add you a.s an 

authorized user 

:m• ... ... . 

Step #6 

Receive your cred tc 

score boost! 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 22 

From boostmyscore.net/boostmycreditscore/index.html: 

31. Defendants’ contract similarly sets out an advance fee: the Authorized User Lease 

Agreement requires consumers to make payment “contemporaneous with” the submission of 

their personal information to Defendants, “Upon receipt” of which Defendants “shall use [their] 

best efforts to have [the consumer] added to one or more credit card accounts as an authorized 

user.” 

32. In numerous instances, Defendants have charged consumers hundreds or 

thousands of dollars before Defendants’ purported credit repair services have been fully 

performed. 

33. Defendants also purport to offer consumers a money-back guarantee. In 

numerous instances, however, Defendants have not provided refunds to consumers who sought 

them. 

Defendants’ Unlawful Practices Are Ongoing 

34. Based on the facts and violations of law alleged in this Complaint, the FTC has 

reason to believe that Defendants are violating or are about to violate laws enforced by the FTC, 

including the FTC Act, CROA, and the TSR. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 22 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 

35. Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in or affecting commerce.” 

36. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive 

acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 

Count I 

Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Repair Services 

37. In numerous instances, in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, 

offering for sale, or sale of credit repair services, Defendants have represented, directly or 

indirectly, expressly or by implication, that: 

a. Defendants’ credit repair services will significantly improve consumers’ 

credit scores, including FICO credit scores; or 

b. Defendants’ credit repair services will help consumers obtain a mortgage. 

38. In truth and in fact, in numerous of the instances in which Defendants have made 

the representations set forth in Paragraph 37 of this Complaint, such representations were false or 

misleading or not substantiated at the time Defendants made them. 

39. Therefore, Defendants’ making of the representations as set forth in Paragraph 37 

constitutes a deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15. U.S.C. § 

45(a). 

VIOLATIONS OF THE CREDIT REPAIR ORGANIZATIONS ACT 

40. The Credit Repair Organizations Act took effect on April 1, 1997, and has since 

that date remained in full force and effect. 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 22 

41. The purposes of CROA, according to Congress, are (1) to ensure that prospective 

buyers of the services of credit repair organizations are provided with the information necessary 

to make an informed decision regarding the purchase of such services; and (2) to protect the 

public from unfair or deceptive advertising and business practices by credit repair organizations. 

15 U.S.C. § 1679(b). 

42. CROA defines a “credit repair organization” as “any person who uses any 

instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails to sell, provide, or perform (or represent that 

they can or will sell, provide, or perform) any service, in return for the payment of money or 

other valuable consideration, for the express or implied purpose of . . . improving any consumer’s 

credit record, credit history, or credit rating. . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 1679a(3). 

43. Defendants are a “credit repair organization.” 

44. CROA prohibits all persons from counseling or advising any consumer to make 

any statement which is untrue or misleading with respect to any consumer’s credit worthiness, 

credit standing, or credit capacity to (A) any consumer reporting agency or (B) any person who 

has extended credit to the consumer or to whom the consumer has applied or is applying for an 

extension of credit. 15 U.S.C. § 1679b(a)(1). 

45. CROA prohibits all persons from making or using any untrue or misleading 

representation of the services of the credit repair organization. 15 U.S.C. § 1679b(a)(3). 

46. CROA prohibits engaging, directly or indirectly, in any act, practice, or course of 

business that constitutes or results in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, a fraud or 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 22 

deception on any person in connection with the offer or sale of the services of the credit repair 

organization. 15 U.S.C § 1679b(a)(4). 

47. CROA prohibits credit repair organizations from charging or receiving any money 

or other valuable consideration for the performance of any service which the credit repair 

organization has agreed to perform before such service is fully performed. 15 U.S.C. § 

1679b(b). 

48. Pursuant to Section 410(b)(1) of CROA, 15 U.S.C. § 1679h(b)(1), any violation 

of any requirement or prohibition of CROA constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice in 

commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). Pursuant to Section 

410(b)(2) of CROA, 15 U.S.C. § 1679h(b)(2), all functions and powers of the FTC under the 

FTC Act are available to the FTC to enforce compliance with CROA in the same manner as if 

the violation had been a violation of any FTC trade regulation rule. 

Count II 

Misleading Use of Tradelines 

49. In numerous instances, in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, 

offering for sale, or sale of services to consumers by a credit repair organization, as that term is 

defined in Section 403(3) of CROA, 15 U.S.C. § 1679a(3), Defendants have counseled or 

advised consumers to make statements, which are untrue or misleading with respect to 

consumers’ credit worthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity to persons who have extended 

credit to the consumers or to whom the consumers have applied or are applying for an extension 

of credit, including by representing that consumers are “additional authorized users” on one or 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 22 

several credit cards or line of credit accounts held by account holders when such consumers are 

not given access to the credit. 

50. Therefore, Defendants’ acts or practices as set forth in Paragraph 49 violate 

Section 404(a)(1)(B) of CROA, 15 U.S.C. § 1679b(a)(1)(B). 

Count III 

Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Repair Services 

51. In numerous instances, in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, 

offering for sale, or sale of services to consumers by a credit repair organization, as that term is 

defined in Section 403(3) of CROA, 15 U.S.C. § 1679a(3), Defendants have made untrue or 

misleading representations to consumers, including that: 

a. Defendants’ credit repair services will significantly improve consumers’ 

credit scores, including FICO credit scores; and 

b. Defendants’ credit repair services will help consumers obtain a mortgage. 

52. Therefore, Defendants’ acts or practices as set forth in Paragraph 51 violate 

Section 404(a)(3) of CROA, 15 U.S.C. § 1679b(a)(3). 

Count IV 

Course of Business That Results In Fraud or Deception 

53. In numerous instances, in connection with the offer or sale of services by a credit 

repair organization, as that term is defined in Section 403(3) of CROA, 15 U.S.C. § 1679a(3), 

Defendants have engaged, directly or indirectly, in acts or practices or courses of business that 

constituted or resulted in the commission of, or attempt to commit, fraud or deception on 

persons, including consumers, issuers of credit, and credit reporting agencies, including by 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 22 

brokering the sale of authorized user tradelines to third parties who Defendants contractually bar 

from accessing the credit. 

54. Therefore, Defendants’ acts or practices as set forth in Paragraph 53 violate 

Section 404(a)(4) of CROA, 15 U.S.C. § 1679b(a)(4). 

Count V 

Violation of Prohibition Against Charging Advance Fees For Credit Repair Services 

55. In numerous instances, in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, 

offering for sale, or sale of services to consumers by a credit repair organization, as that term is 

defined in Section 403(3) of CROA, 15 U.S.C. § 1679a(3), Defendants have charged or received 

money or other valuable consideration for the performance of credit repair services that 

Defendants have agreed to perform before such services were fully performed. 

56. Therefore, Defendants’ acts or practices as set forth in Paragraph 55 violate 

Section 404(b) of CROA, 15 U.S.C. § 1679b(b). 

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 

57. Congress directed the FTC to prescribe rules prohibiting abusive and deceptive 

telemarketing acts or practices pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108. 

The FTC adopted the original Telemarketing Sales Rule in 1995, extensively amended it in 2003, 

and amended certain sections thereafter. 16 C.F.R. Part 310. 

58. Under the TSR, a “telemarketer” means any person who, in connection with 

telemarketing, initiates or receives telephone calls to or from a consumer or donor. 16 C.F.R. § 

310.2(ff). A “seller” means any person who, in connection with a telemarketing transaction, 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 22 

provides, offers to provide, or arranges for others to provide goods or services to the customer in 

exchange for consideration. 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(dd). 

59. Defendants are “seller[s]” or “telemarketer[s]” engaged in “telemarketing,” as 

those terms are defined in the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(dd), (ff), and (gg). 

60. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from misrepresenting, directly or by 

implication, any material aspect of the performance, efficacy, nature, or central characteristics of 

goods or services that are subject of a sales offer. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(iii). 

61. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from requesting or receiving payment 

of any fee or consideration for goods or services represented to remove derogatory information 

from, or improve, a person’s credit history, credit record, or credit rating until: (a) the time frame 

in which the seller has represented all of the goods or services will be provided to that person has 

expired; and (b) the seller has provided the person with documentation in the form of a consumer 

report from a consumer reporting agency demonstrating that the promised results have been 

achieved, such report having been issued more than six months after the results were achieved. 

16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(2). 

62. Pursuant to Section 3(c) of the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6102(c), and 

Section 18(d)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(d)(3), a violation of the TSR constitutes an 

unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce, in violation of Section 5(a) of the 

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 22 

Count VI 

Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Repair Services 

63. In numerous instances, in connection with the telemarketing of credit repair 

services, Defendants have misrepresented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, 

material aspects of the performance, efficacy, nature, or central characteristics of their credit 

repair services, including but not limited to, that: 

a. Defendants’ program will significantly improve consumers’ FICO credit 

scores; and 

b. Defendants’ program will help consumers obtain a mortgage. 

64. Therefore, Defendants’ acts or practices as set forth in Paragraph 63 are deceptive 

telemarketing acts and practices that violate Section 310.3(a)(2)(iii) of the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 

310.3(a)(2)(iii). 

Count VII 

Violation of Prohibition Against Charging Advance Fees For Credit Repair Services 

65. In numerous instances, in connection with the telemarketing of credit repair 

services, Defendants have requested or received payment of a fee or consideration for credit 

repair services before: (a) the time frame in which Defendants have represented all of the credit 

repair services will be provided to consumers has expired; and (b) Defendants have provided 

consumers with documentation in the form of a consumer report from a consumer reporting 

agency demonstrating that the promised results have been achieved, such report having been 

issued more than six months after the results were achieved. 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 22 

66. Therefore, Defendants’ acts or practices as set forth Paragraph 65 are abusive 

telemarketing acts or practices that violate Section 310.4(a)(2) of the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 

310.4(a)(2). 

CONSUMER INJURY 

67. Consumers are suffering, have suffered, and will continue to suffer substantial 

injury as a result of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, CROA, and the TSR. In addition, 

Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of their unlawful acts or practices. Absent 

injunctive relief by this Court, Defendants are likely to continue to injure consumers, reap unjust 

enrichment, and harm the public interest. 

THIS COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF 

68. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), empowers this Court to grant 

injunctive and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to halt and redress violations 

of any provision of law enforced by the FTC. The Court, in the exercise of its equitable 

jurisdiction, may award ancillary relief, including rescission or reformation of contracts, 

restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, to prevent and 

remedy any violation of any provision of law enforced by the FTC. 

69. Section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, Section 410(b) of CROA, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1679h(b), and Section 6(b) of the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6105(b), authorize this Court 

to grant such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting from 

Defendants’ violations of CROA and the TSR, including the rescission or reformation of 

contracts, and the refund of money. 

21 
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Plaintiff, pursuant to Sections 13(b) and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 

53(b) and 57b, and Section 410(b) of CROA, 15 U.S.C. § 1679h(b), Section 6(b) of the 

Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6105(b ), and the Court's own equitable powers, requests that the 

Court: 

A. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act, CROA, 

and the TSR by Defendants; 

B. Award such reliefas the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers 

resulting from Defendants' violations of the FTC Act, CROA, and the TSR, including rescission 

or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of 

ill-gotten monies; and 

C. Award Plaintiff the costs of bringing this action, as well as such other and 

additional reliefas the Court may determine to be just and proper. 

22 

Respectfully submitted, 

ALDEN F. ABBOTT 

General Co~ <Tier,\~ 

DANIEL DWYER 

GREGORY A. ASHE 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: 202-326-2957 (Dwyer) 

Telephone: 202-326-3719 (Ashe) 

Facsimile: 202-326-3768 

Email: ddwyer@ftc.gov; gashe@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Case 1:20-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 22