, ___ _ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT z:,g JL:. -3 P/i ::]: 27 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

ORLANDO DIVISION 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

FIRST CHOICE HORIZON LLC, a Florida 

limited liability company, 

FIRST SOUTHERN TRUST LLC, a Florida 

limited liability company, 

FIRST UNITED MUTUAL LLC, a Florida 

limited liability company, 

PREMIER UN ION TRUST LLC, also dba 

SECOND CHOICE HORIZON, a Florida limited 

liability company, 

SOUTH PREMIER TRUST LLC, a Florida 

limited liability company, 

SUNCOAST MUTUAL LLC, a Florida limited 

liability company, 

RAYMOND GONZALEZ, individually and as a 

member, manager, or owner of FIRST CHOICE 

HORIZON LLC, 

CARLOS S. GUERRERO, a/k/a Carlos Sinencio 

Guerrero, also dba CSG SOLUTIONS, 

individually, and as an officer, member, manager, 

or owner of FIRST CHOICE HORIZON LLC 

and FIRST UNITED MUTUAL LLC, and 

JOSHUA HERNANDEZ, individually, and as a 

member, manager, or owner of SOUTH 

PREMIER TRUST LLC, 

Defendants. 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

s-\ 
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, and the Telemarketing and 

Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act ("Telemarketing Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108, 

to obtain temporary, preliminary, and 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), and in violation of the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), 16 

C.F.R. Part 310. 

SUMMARY OF THE CASE 

2. Since at least May 2016, the Individual Defendants Raymond Gonzalez, 

Carlos S. Guerrero, and Joshua Hernandez, through a maze of six interrelated companies 

called First Choice Horizon LLC, First Southern Trust LLC, First United Mutual LLC, 

Premier Union Trust LLC, South Premier Trust LLC, and Suncoast Mutual LLC (the 

"Corporate Defendants" and collectively "Defendants"), have engaged in a telemarketing 

scheme that defrauds financially distressed and often older adult consumers by selling a 

bogus credit card interest rate reduction service ("Defendants' service" or "service"). Under 

the name "CSG Solutions" and, more recently, "Second Choice Horizon," Defendants sell 

their service by making deceptive guarantees that, for a fee, they will lower consumers' 

credit card interest rates to zero percent for the life of their credit card debt and thereby save 

the consumers thousands of dollars. 

2 
3. As part of this campaign, Defendants have initiated, or directed others to 

initiate, illegal telephone calls to consumers throughout the United States, including many 

consumers whose telephone numbers appear in the Do Not Call registry maintained by the 

FTC (the "National Do Not Call Registry" or "Registry"). Many of Defendants' calls deliver 

a prerecorded message, also known as a "robocall," which instructs consumers to "press I" if 

they are interested in lowering their credit card interest rates. Consumers who press "I" on 

their telephone keypad are connected to a live telemarketer who gives Defendants' sales 

pitch for their service. 

4. During this telemarketing call, often under the guise of confirming the 

consumers' identity, Defendants ask consumers to provide personal financial information 

such as their social security number, and their credit card numbers and security codes. 

5. Although, in many instances, Defendants tell consumers that they are charging 

a fee for their service, Defendants do not disclose that their service may result in consumers 

paying additional bank or transaction fees, such as balance transfer fees that can typically 

total three to five percent of the amount of a consumer's credit card debt. 

6. Consumers who agree to use Defendants' service do not receive what they are 

promised. While, in some instances, Defendants are able to secure new credit cards for 

consumers at a zero percent interest, this rate is not for the life of the consumer's debt, but 

rather only a promotional "teaser" interest rate that only lasts for a limited time period, after 

which the interest rate increases significantly. Defendants' tactics almost never result in 

consumers obtaining a zero percent interest rate that is permanent. Further, consumers 

typically do not save thousands of dollars on their credit card debt by using Defendants' 

3 
service, especially after they are required to pay Defendants' often substantial fee in addition 

to any bank or transaction fees, such as balance transfer fees. 

7. In numerous instances, consumers who do not agree to use Defendants' 

service discover that, after their telemarketing call was concluded, Defendants have applied 

for one or more credit cards on behalf of the consumers without the consumers' knowledge, 

authorization, or express informed consent. Thereafter, these consumers often receive an 

invoice and/or calls from Defendants to pay the fee for Defendants' unordered and unwanted 

service. 

8. Corporate Defendants have operated as a common enterprise while engaging 

in these deceptive or unfair acts. These integrated entities operate under common control, 

share staff, locations, telephone numbers, business expenses, and commingle funds. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1337(a), and 1345. 

10. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 139l(b}(l) & (2) and 15 

U .S.C. § 53(b ). 

PLAINTIFF 

11. 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 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 

4 
prohibits deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts or practices in or affecting commerce. 

12. The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, by its own 

attorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and the TSR and to secure such relief as may 

be appropriate in each case, including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the 

refund of monies paid, the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other relief. 15 U.S.C. §§ 

53(b), 56(a)(2)(A)-(B), 57b, 6102(c), and 6105(b). 

DEFENDANTS 

13. Defendant First Choice Horizon LLC is a Florida limited liability company 

with its principal place of business at 3929 Pemberly Pines Circle, Saint Cloud, Florida 

34769. First Choice Horizon transacts or has transacted business in this district and 

throughout the United States. 

14. Defendant First Southern Trust LLC is a Florida limited liability company 

with its principal place of business at 8529 South Park Circle, Orlando, Florida 32819. First 

Southern Trust transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United 

States. 

15. Defendant First United Mutual LLC is a Florida limited liability company 

with its principal place of business at 6900 South Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando, Florida 

32809. First United Mutual transacts or has transacted business in this district and 

throughout the United States. 

16. Defendant Premier Union Trust LLC, also dba Second Choice Horizon, is a 

Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business at 1341 Raintree Bend, 

Clermont, Florida 34 714. Premier Union Trust transacts or has transacted business in this 

5 
district and throughout the United States. 

17. Defendant South Premier Trust LLC is a Florida limited liability company 

with its principal place of business at 296 E Michigan Street, Orlando, Florida 32806. South 

Premier Trust transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United 

States. 

18. Defendant Suncoast Mutual LLC is a Florida limited liability company with 

its principal place of business at 1000 Legion Place, Orlando, Florida 32801. Suncoast 

Mutual transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United States. 

19. Defendant Raymond Gonzalez is a member, manager, or owner of First 

Choice Horizon LLC. 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 Raymond Gonzalez resides in 

this district and, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted 

business in this district and throughout the United States. 

20. Defendant Carlos S. Guerrero is or has been an officer, member, manager, or 

owner of the Corporate Defendants First Choice Horizon LLC and First United Mutual LLC. 

He also holds the registration for the Florida fictitious name "CSG Solutions." 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 Guerrero resides in this district and, in connection with the 

matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the 

United States. 

6 
21. Defendant Joshua Hernandez is a member, manager, or owner of South 

Premier Trust LLC. 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 Hernandez resides in this 

district and, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted 

business in this district and throughout the United States. 

COMMON ENTERPRISE 

22. The Corporate Defendants have operated as a common enterprise while 

engaging in the deceptive or unfair acts and practices, and other violations of law alleged 

herein. Corporate Defendants are integrated entities operating under common control, 

sharing staff, telephone numbers, business expenses, and mailing locations. The Corporate 

Defendants also commingle funds - moving money between their numerous accounts and 

ultimately delivering millions of dollars in profits from the enterprise to the Individual 

Defendants. Because Corporate Defendants have operated as a common enterprise, each of 

them is jointly and severally liable for the acts and practices alleged below. The Individual 

Defendants have formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated 

in the acts and practices of Corporate Defendants that constitute the common enterprise. 

COMMERCE 

23. 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. 

7 
DEFENDANTS' BUSINESS PRACTICES 

24. Since at least May 2016, Defendants have engaged in a plan, program, or 

campaign to market, promote, offer for sale, or sell their credit card rate reduction service 

through interstate telephone calls to consumers throughout the United States. 

25. Defendants induce the sale of their service by making numerous material 

misrepresentations, including, but not limited to, that Defendants will lower consumers' 

credit card interest rates permanently to zero percent and save the consumers thousands of 

dollars on their credit card debt. 

26. Defendants charge a substantial fee for their service, which can generally 

range from $200 to $8,000. 

27. Defendants instruct consumers to pay the fee for their service to one of the 

Corporate Defendants by authorizing remotely created checks, taking a cash advance against 

their credit cards, or by sending a money order, or a personal, bank, or credit card check by 

mail to post office boxes located in the Orlando, Florida area. 

28. Consumers who agree to use Defendants' service rarely get the service 

promised by Defendants during their telemarketing call, and Defendants, in most instances, 

do not refund the consumers' payment. 

29. In numerous instances, consumers who refuse the offer of Defendants' service 

during their telemarketing call nonetheless receive unordered and unwanted (a) credit cards 

and credit card applications, and (b) invoices and/or calls for payment of the fee for 

Defendants' service. 

8 
Defendants' Telemarketing Campaign 

30. In numerous instances, Defendants have initiated, or directed others to initiate, 

telemarketing calls to consumers that deliver a prerecorded message offering consumers the 

opportunity to lower their credit card interest rates if they press a number on their telephone 

keypad. When consumers press the number on their telephone keypad, they are connected to 

a live representative. 

31. In other instances, Defendants have initiated, or directed others to initiate, 

telemarketing calls to consumers in which a live representative offers consumers the 

opportunity to lower their credit card interest rates to zero. 

32. Once a consumer is connected with a live telemarketer, Defendants do not 

initially disclose their company name, but rather often use a name like "card member 

services" and frequently deceive consumers into thinking that Defendants have a relationship 

or affiliation with the consumer's bank or credit card issuer. 

33. Defendants also deceive consumers into disclosing their personal financial 

information, such as their social security number, and their credit card numbers and security 

codes, to Defendants under the guise that Defendants must confirm the consumers' identity. 

34. During telemarketing calls, Defendants represent that they offer a service that 

will permanently reduce consumers' credit card interest rates to zero percent. 

35. During telemarketing calls, Defendants often claim that their service will 

allow consumers to save thousands of dollars on their credit card debt. 

36. During telemarketing calls, Defendants often tell consumers that they will be 

charged a fee for Defendants' service typically ranging from $200 to $8,000. 

9 
3 7. Defendants fail to inform consumers that consumers will likely have to pay 

additional fees to obtain the zero percent interest rates. 

Defendants' Deceptive Telemarketing Sales Pitch 

38. Later in the telephone calls, Defendants inform consumers that they do not 

contact consumers' current credit card companies to obtain a zero percent credit card interest 

rate, but rather, Defendants obtain new credit cards that have a zero percent introductory 

"teaser" interest rate ("promotional rate"), and then have the consumers transfer their existing 

credit card balances to those new cards. 

39. As part of this process, consumers often pay a three to five percent balance 

transfer fee to move their existing credit card balances to the promotional rate credit cards. 

40. Defendants do not disclose the balance transfer fees to consumers. 

41. The promotional rate credit cards that Defendants obtain for consumers rarely, 

if ever, result in a consumer obtaining a permanent zero percent interest rate. In most cases, 

the interest rates on these credit cards increase significantly at the end of the limited 

promotional term. 

42. Defendants frequently send consumers an invoice and/or call consumers 

demanding payment of the fee for their service. Consumers who pay Defendants' service fee 

and transfer their credit card balances to the promotional rate cards obtained for consumers 

by Defendants, rarely, if ever, save thousands of dollars on their credit card debt. 

43. Defendants' claim that they will obtain permanent, zero percent credit card 

interest rates for consumers is false and deceptive. 

44. Defendants' claim that, by using their service, consumers will save thousands 

10 
of dollars on their credit card debt is false and deceptive. 

Post Solicitation Deceptive and Unfair Practices 

45. After hearing Defendants' telemarketing sales pitch, many consumers refuse 

Defendants' off er for their service. Despite this refusal, Defendants use the consumers' 

personal financial information obtained during the sales call, and apply for one or more credit 

cards on behalf of these consumers without the consumers' knowledge, authorization, or 

express informed consent. 

46. Thereafter, Defendants frequently send these consumers an invoice and/or call 

consumers demanding payment of the fee for their service. 

4 7. In many instances, consumers dispute that they ordered Defendants' service. 

Defendants, nonetheless, claim that these consumers verbally ordered Defendants' service, 

that Defendants already obtained new credit cards for these consumers, and that the 

consumers owe money to Defendants for their service. 

48. While, in some instances, Defendants claim to have an audio recording of the 

sales call in which the order was purportedly placed, Defendants ignore any consumer 

requests to hear the recording. 

49. In numerous instances, consumers refuse to pay Defendants' fee for a service 

they did not order and did not want. When consumers refuse to pay, Defendants often 

attempt to coerce them by making repeated calls to these consumers demanding payment. 

50. In numerous instances, Defendants' claim that consumers have ordered 

Defendants' service and that consumers owe money to Defendants for their service is false 

and deceptive. 

11 
51. Defendants' practice of applying for one or more credit cards for consumers 

without the consumers' knowledge, authorization, or express informed consent is an unfair 

act or practice. 

Defendants' Illegal Telemarketing Practices 

52. Defendants, acting directly or through one or more intermediaries, have made 

numerous outbound calls to telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry to sell 

their service. 

53. In numerous instances, Defendants, acting directly or through one or more 

intermediaries, have initiated outbound telemarketing calls to consumers that delivered a 

prerecorded message to sell their service. 

54. In numerous instances, Defendants, acting directly or through one or more 

intermediaries, have initiated outbound telemarketing calls to telephone numbers in various 

area codes without first paying the annual fee for access to the telephone numbers within 

such area codes that are included in the National Do Not Call Registry. 

55. In numerous instances, Defendants require consumers to pay their service fee 

from consumers' bank accounts by authorizing remotely created checks, a payment method 

which is prohibited in connection with the telemarketing of goods or services. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT 

56. Section S(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits "unfair or deceptive 

acts or practices in or affecting commerce." 

57. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute 

deceptive acts or practices prohibited by Section S(a) of the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

12 
58. Acts or practices are unfair under Section 5 of the FTC Act if they cause or 

are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that consumers cannot reasonably avoid 

themselves and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or 

competition. 15 U.S.C. § 45(n). 

COUNT ONE 

Misrepresentations Regarding Defendants' Service in Violation of Section S(a) 

59. In numerous instances, since at least May 2016, in connection with the 

marketing, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of Defendants' service, Defendants have 

represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that: 

A. Consumers who purchased Defendants' service would have their 

credit card interest rates permanently reduced to zero percent; and 

B. Consumers who purchased Defendants' service would save thousands 

of dollars on their credit card debt. 

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

representations set forth in Paragraph 59 of this Complaint: 

A. Consumers who purchased Defendants' service do not have their 

credit card interest rates permanently reduced to zero percent; and 

B. Consumers who purchased Defendants' service do not save thousands 

of dollars on their credit card debt. 

61. Therefore, Defendants' representations as set forth in Paragraph 5 9 of this 

Complaint are false and misleading and constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of 

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

13 
COUNT TWO 

Deceptive Omissions/Failures to Disclose in Violation of Section 5(a) 

62. In numerous instances, since at least May 2016, in connection with the 

marketing, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of Defendants' service, Defendants have 

represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that their service fee is the 

only cost that consumers will incur to have consumers' credit card interest rates permanently 

reduced to zero percent. 

63. In numerous instances, Defendants have failed to disclose, or failed to 

disclose adequately to consumers material terms and conditions of their offer, including that 

Defendants' service may result in a consumer having to pay additional bank or transaction 

fees, such as balance transfer fees to credit card issuers which can typically total three to five 

percent of the amount of a consumer's credit card debt. 

64. Defendants' failure to disclose, or disclose adequately, the material 

information as set forth in Paragraph 63 of this Complaint, in light of the representation 

described in Paragraph 62, above, constitutes a deceptive act or practice in violation of 

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

COUNT THREE 

Misrepresentations Regarding Purchasing Defendants' Service in 

Violation of Section 5(a) 

65. In numerous instances, since at least May 2016, in connection with the 

marketing, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of Defendants' service, Defendants have 

represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that: 

A. Consumers have ordered Defendants' service; and 

B. Consumers owe money to Defendants for Defendants' service. 

14 
66. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances in which Defendants have made the 

representations set forth in Paragraph 65 of this Complaint: 

A. Consumers have not ordered Defendants' service; and 

B. Consumers do not owe money to Defendants for Defendants' service. 

67. Therefore, Defendants' representations as set forth in Paragraph 65 of this 

Complaint are false and misleading and constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of 

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

COUNTFOUR 

Unauthorized Consumer Credit Card Applications in Violation of Sections 5(a) and (n) 

68. In numerous instances, since at least May 2016, Defendants have applied for 

one or more credit cards for consumers without the consumers' knowledge, authorization, or 

express informed consent. 

69. Defendants' actions cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to 

consumers that consumers cannot reasonably avoid themselves and that is not outweighed by 

countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 

70. Defendants' practices as set forth in Paragraph 68 of this Complaint constitute 

unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) and (n). 

THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 

71. 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 TSR in 1995, and extensively amended it in 2003 

and 2010. The 2010 amendments to the TSR address the telemarketing of debt relief 

services. 16 C.F .R. Part 310. 

15 
72. Defendants are "seller[ s ]" or "telemarketer[ s ]" engaged in "telemarketing" as 

defined by the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(dd), (ff), and (gg). For purposes of the TSR, a 

"seller" is any person who, in connection with a telemarketing transaction, provides, offers to 

provide, or arranges for others to provide goods or services to a customer in exchange for 

consideration. 16 C.F .R. § 310.2( dd). A "telemarketer" is any person who, in connection 

with telemarketing, initiates or receives telephone calls to or from a customer or donor. 

16 C.F.R. § 310.2(ff). And "telemarketing" is a plan, program, or campaign which is 

conducted to induce the purchase of goods or services or a charitable contribution, by use of 

one or more telephones and which involves more than one interstate telephone call. 

16 C.F .R. § 310.2(gg). 

73. Defendants are sellers or telemarketers of a "debt relief service" as defined by 

the TSR, 16 C.F .R. § 310.2( o ). Under the TSR, a "debt relief service" is any program or 

service represented, directly or by implication, to renegotiate, settle, or in any way alter the 

terms of payment or other terms of the debt between a person and one or more unsecured 

creditors, including, but not limited to, a reduction in the balance, interest rate, or fees owed 

by a person to an unsecured creditor or debt collector. 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(0). 

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

by implication, in the sale of goods or services, any material aspect of any debt relief service. 

16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(x). 

75. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from failing to disclose, in a clear 

and conspicuous manner, before a consumer consents to pay for the goods or services 

offered, the total costs to purchase, receive, or use any goods or services that are the subject 

16 
of the sales offer. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(l)(i). 

76. The TSR prohibits any seller or telemarketer from causing billing information 

to be submitted for payment, or collecting or attempting to collect payment for goods or 

services, directly or indirectly, without the customer's express verifiable authorization, 

except when the method of payment used is a credit card subject to the protections of the 

Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226, or a debit 

card subject to the protections of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq., 

and Regulation E, 12 C.F .R. § 205. Such authorization shall be deemed verifiable if any of 

the following means is employed: 

(i) Express written authorization by the customer, which includes the customer's 

signature; 

(ii) Express oral authorization which is audio-recorded and made available upon 

request to the customer, and which evidences clearly both the customer's 

authorization of payment for the services that are the subject of the 

telemarketing transaction and the customer's receipt of all of the following 

information: 

(A) An accurate description, clearly and conspicuously stated, of the 

services for which payment authorization is sought; 

(B) The number of debits, charges, or payments (if more than one); 

(C) The date(s) the debit(s), charge(s), or payment(s) will be submitted for 

payment; 

(D) The amount(s) of the debit(s), charge(s), or payment(s); 

17 
,,-.,...., 

(E) The customer's name; 

(F) The customer's billing information, identified with sufficient 

specificity such that the customer understands what account will be 

used to collect payment for the services that are the subject of the 

telemarketing transaction; 

(G) A telephone number for customer inquiry that is answered during 

normal business hours; and 

(H) The date of the customer's oral authorization; or 

(iii) Written confirmation of the transaction, identified in a clear and conspicuous 

manner as such on the outside of the envelope, sent to the customer via first 

class mail prior to the submission for payment of the customer's billing 

information, and that includes all of the information contained in 

§§310.3(a)(3)(ii)(A)-(G) and a clear and conspicuous statement of the 

procedures by which the customer can obtain a refund from the seller 

or telemarketer in the event the confirmation is inaccurate. 

16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(3). 

77. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from creating or causing to be 

created, directly or indirectly, a remotely created payment order as payment for goods or 

services offered or sold through telemarketing. 16 C.F .R. § 310.4(a)(9). A remotely created 

payment order includes a remotely created check. 16 C.F .R. § 310.2( cc). 

78. The 2003 amendments to the TSR established the National Do Not Call 

Registry, maintained by the FTC, which is a registry of consumers who do not wish to 

18 
receive certain types of telemarketing calls. Consumers can register their telephone numbers 

on the Registry without charge either through a toll-free telephone call or over the Internet at 

www.donotcall.gov. 

79. The FTC allows sellers, telemarketers, and other permitted organizations to 

access the Registry over the Internet at www.telemarketing.donotcall.gov, to pay any 

required fee(s), and to download the numbers not to call. 

80. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from calling any telephone 

number within a given area code unless the seller on whose behalf the call is made has paid 

the annual fee for access to the telephone numbers within that area code included in the 

Registry. 16 C.F.R. § 310.8. 

81. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from initiating an outbound 

telephone call to telephone numbers on the Registry. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(l)(iii)(B). 

82. The TSR prohibits initiating a telephone call that delivers a prerecorded 

message to induce the purchase of any good or service unless the seller has obtained from the 

recipient of the call an express agreement, in writing, that evidences the willingness of the 

recipient of the call to receive calls that deliver prerecorded messages by or on behalf of a 

specific seller. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(l)(v)(A). 

83. 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 
VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 

COUNT FIVE 

Misrepresenting Material Aspects of a Debt Relief Service - 16 C.F.R. 310.3(a)(2)(x) 

84. In numerous instances, since at least May 2016, in connection with the 

telemarketing of a debt relief service, Defendants have misrepresented, directly or by 

implication, material aspects of a debt relief service, including, but not limited to, that: 

A. Consumers who purchased Defendants' service would have their credit 

card interest rates permanently reduced to zero percent; and 

B. Consumers who purchased Defendants' service would save thousands 

of dollars on their credit card debt. 

85. Defendants' acts or practices as set forth in Paragraph 84 of this Complaint 

are deceptive telemarketing acts or practices that violate the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(x). 

COUNT SIX 

Failing to Disclose the Total Cost of the Debt Relief Service - 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(l)(i) 

86. In numerous instances, since at least May 2016, in connection with the 

telemarketing of a debt relief service, Defendants have failed to disclose, in a clear and 

conspicuous manner, before a consumer pays for the goods or services offered, that their 

service may result in a consumer having to pay additional bank or transaction fees, such as 

balance transfer fees to credit card issuers which can typically total three to five percent of 

the amount of a consumer's credit card debt. 

87. Defendants' acts or practices as set forth in Paragraph 86 of this Complaint 

are deceptive telemarketing acts or practices that violate the TSR, 16 C.F .R. § 310.3(a)(l )(i). 

20 
COUNT SEVEN 

Failure to Obtain Express Verifiable Authorization - 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(3) 

88. In numerous instances, since at least May 2016, in connection with the 

telemarketing of a debt relief service, Defendants have collected or attempted to collect 

payment for Defendants' service, directly or indirectly, without the consumers' express 

verifiable authorization. 

89. Defendants' acts or practices as set forth in Paragraph 88 of this Complaint 

are deceptive telemarketing acts or practices that violate the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(3). 

COUNT EIGHT 

Use of Prohibited Payment Method in Telemarketing Sales -16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(9) 

90. In numerous instances, Defendants have created or caused to be created, 

directly or indirectly, a remotely created check as payment for goods or services offered or 

sold through telemarketing. 

91. Defendants' acts or practices as set forth in Paragraph 90 of this Complaint 

are abusive telemarketing acts or practices that violate the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(9). 

COUNT NINE 

Violating the National Do Not Call Registry- 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(l)(iii)(B) 

92. In numerous instances, since at least May 2016, in connection with 

telemarketing, Defendants have engaged in, or caused a telemarketer to engage in, initiating 

an outbound telephone call to a person's telephone number on the National Do Not Call 

Registry in violation of the TSR, 16 C.F .R. § 310.4(b )(1 )(iii)(B). 

21 
COUNT TEN 

Initiating Unlawful Prerecorded Messages -16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v)(A) 

93. In numerous instances, since at least May 2016, in connection with 

telemarketing, Defendants have engaged in, or caused a telemarketer to engage in, initiating 

outbound telephone calls that deliver prerecorded messages in violation of the TSR, 16 

C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(l)(v)(A). 

COUNT ELEVEN 

Failing to Pay National Registry Fees -16 C.F.R. § 310.8 

94. In numerous instances, since at least May 2016, in connection with 

telemarketing, Defendants have initiated, or caused others to initiate, an outbound telephone 

call to a telephone number within a given area code when Defendants had not, either directly 

or through another person, paid the required annual fee for access to the telephone numbers 

within that area code that are included in the National Do Not Call Registry, in violation of 

the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.8. 

CONSUMER INJURY 

95. Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a 

result of Defendants' violations of the FTC Act 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. 

TIDS COURT'S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF 

96. 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 

22 
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. 

97. Section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, 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 the 

TSR, including the rescission or reformation of contracts, and the refund of money 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Plaintiff FTC, pursuant to Sections 13(b) and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 57b, and 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. Award Plaintiff such preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief as may be 

necessary to avert the likelihood of consumer injury during the pendency of 

this action and to preserve the possibility of effective final relief, including but 

not limited to, temporary and preliminary injunctions, an order freezing assets, 

and the appointment of a receiver; 

B. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act and 

the TSR by Defendants; 

C. Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers 

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

but not limited to, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund 

23 
of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies; and 

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

additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper. 

Dated: <of 5 , 2019. Respectfully submitted, 

ALDEN F. ABBOTT 

General Counsel 

:=t~~~~~ TON, Trial Counsel 

TROS 

225 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1500 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

(404) 656-1362 (Bolton office) 

(202) 650-9806 (Bolton cell) 

E-mail: bbolton@ftc.gov 

(404) 656-1351 (Boutros office) 

(202) 642-7249 (Boutros cell) 

Email: mboutros@ftc.gov 

(404) 656-1379 (FTC Fax) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

24