FILED 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ZOl9 JUN 11 A q: 11 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

GRAND TETON PROFESSIONALS, LLC, a 

Wyoming limited liability company, 

99TH FLOOR, LLC, a Florida limited liability 

company, 

MAIT MANAGEMENT INC., a New York 

corporation, 

DEMAND DYNAMICS LLC, a Florida limited 

liability company, 

ATOMTUM CORPS INC., a Wyoming corporation, 

ATOMIUM CORPS INC., a Colorado corporation, 

STARTUP MASTERS NJ INC., a Wyoming 

corporation, 

STARTUP MASTERS NJ INC., a New Jersey 

corporation, 

FIRST INCORPORATION SERVICES INC., a 

Wyoming corporation, 

FIRST INCORPORATION SERVICES INC., a 

Florida corporation, 

DOUGLAS C. FILTER, in his individual and 

corporate capacity, 

MARCIO G. ANDRADE, in his individual and 

corporate capacity, 

Defendants. 

FILED UN~~COTR~G~f~T 

Case No. :S: i'f -C v-CXYi 33 - VA g 

June 17, 2019 

COMPLAINT FOR 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND·OTHER EQUITABLE 

RELIEF 

1 
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 41 O(b) of the Credit Repair 

Organizations Act ("CROA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1679h(b), Section 6(b) of the Telemarketing 

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

6105(b), the Consumer Review Faimess Act of2016 (''CRFA"), 15 U.S.C. § 45b, 

Section 108(c) of the Truth in Lending Act ("TTLA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1607(c), and Section 

918(c) of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1693o(c), 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), multiple provisions ofCROA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1679-1679/, the 

FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), 16 C.F.R. Part 310, the CRFA, 15 U.S.C. § 

45b, TILA, 15 U.S.C. §§ I601-1666j, and its implementing Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Part 

1026, and Section 907(a) ofEFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 1693e(a) and its implementing 

Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. Part 1005, 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)(2), (c)(J), and (c)(2), and 15 

u.s.c. § 53(b). 

2 
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. §§ 1679-1679/, which prohibits untrue or misleading 

representations to induce the purchase of erect.ii 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 perfonned. 

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. The FTC also 

enforces the CRFA, 15 U.S.C. § 45b, which prohibits the offering of provisions in form 

contracts that restrict individual consumer's ability to communicate reviews, perfonnance 

assessments, and similar analyses about a seller's products, services, or conduct. The 

FTC also enforces TILA, 15 U.S.C. §§ l60J-1666j, which establishes, among other 

things, disclosure and calculation requirements for consumer credit transactions and 

advertisements. The FTC also enforces EFT A, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693-1693r, and its 

implementing Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. Part 1005, which regulates the tights, liabilities, 

and responsibilities of participants in electronic fund transfer systems. 

5. The FTC is authorized to initiate federal distrtct court proceedings, by its own attorneys, 

to enjoin violations of the FTC Act, CROA, the TSR, the CRF A, TILA and Regulation Z, 

3 
and EFTA and Regulation E, and to secure such equitable relief as may be appropriate in 

each case, including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of 

monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies. 15 U.S.C. §§ 45b(d)(2)(A), 

53(b), 57b, 1607(c), 1679h(b), 1693o(c), 6102(c), and 6105(b). 

DEFENDANTS 

6. Defendant Grand Teton Professionals, LLC ("Grand Teton"), also doing business as 

Deletion Expert, Inquiry Busters, .ind Top Tradelines, is a Wyoming limited liability 

company with its principal place of business at 261 South Main Street, Suite 335, 

Newtown, Counecticut. Grand Teton has also used mailing addresses of 24B 

Dodgingtown Road, Newtown, Connecticut, 412 North Main Street, Suite 100, Buffalo, 

Wyoming, and 382 NE J 91st Street, Suite 25825, Miami, Florida. Grand Teton is also 

registered as a Connecticut foreign limited liability company and a Florida foreign 

limited l.iability company. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in 

concert with others, Grand Teton has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold credit 

repair and funding services to consumers throughout the United States. Grand Teton 

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

7. Defendant 99th Floor, LLC ("991ll Floor"), also doing business as Top Tradelines, is a 

Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business at l 000 Ponce de 

Leon Blvd., Suite 214, Coral Gables, Florida. 99th Floor has also used mailing addresses 

of382 NE 191st Street, Suite 25825, Miami, Florida, 175 SW 7th Street, Suite 1805 

Miami, Florida, 1000 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suites 103 and 303, Coral Gables, Florida, 

and 24B Dodgingtown Road, Newtown, CoJlllecticut. At all times material to this 

4 
Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, 99th Floor has advertised, marketed, 

distnbuted, or sold credit repair and funding services to consumers throughout the United 

99th States. Floor transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the 

United States. 

8. Defendant Mait Management Inc. ("Mail Management") is a New York corporation 

with its principal place of business at 228 Park Avenue South, Suite 25825, New York, 

New York. Mait Management has also used mailing addresses 3 82 NE 191 st Street, 

Suite 25825, Miami, Florida and I 000 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 303, Coral Gables, 

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

Mait Management has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold credit repair and funding 

services to consumers throughout the United States. Mait Management transacts or has 

transacted business in this district and th:oughout the United States. 

9. Defendant Demand Dynamics LLC ("Demand Dynamics") is a Florida limited liability 

company with its principal place of business at 1000 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 214, 

Coral Gables, Florida. Demand Dynamics has also used mailing addresses of382 NE 

191 st Street, Suite 25825, Miami, Florida, 175 SW 7th Street Suite 1805 Miami, Florida, 

1000 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suites 103 &.303, Coral Gables, Florida, and 24B 

Dodgingtown Road, Newtown, Connecticut. At all times material to this Complaint, 

acting alone or in concert with others, Demand Dynamics has advertised, marketed, 

distributed, or sold credit repair and funding services to consumers throughout the United 

States. Demand Dynamics transacts or has transacted business in this district and 

throughout the United States. 

5 
10. Defendant Atomium Corps Inc. ("Atomium-WY") is a Wyoming corporation with its 

principal place of business at 261 South Main Street, Suite 335, Newtown, Connecticut. 

Atomium-WY has also used mailing addresses of24B Dodgingtown Road, Newtown, 

Connecticut and 868 N 7th Street, Laramie, Wyoming. At all times material to this 

Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Atomium- WY has advertised, 

marketed, distributed, or sold credit repair and funding services to consumers throughout 

the United States. Atomium-WY transacts or has transacted business in this district and . 

throughout the United States. 

11 . Defendant Atomium Corps Inc. ("Atomium-CO") is a Colorado corporation with its 

principal place of business at 15911 E. Beaver Brook Lane, Parker, Colorado. At all 

times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Atomium-CO 

has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold credit repair and funding services to 

consumers throughout the United States. Atomium-CO transacts or has transacted 

business in this district and throughout the United States. 

12. Defendant Startup Masters NJ Inc. ("Startup Masters-WY") is a Wyoming corporation 

with its principal place of business at 261 South Main Street, Suite 335, Newtown, 

Connecticut. Startup Masters-WY has also used mailing addresses of24B 

Dodgingtown Road, Newtown, Connecticut and 868 N 7th Street, Laramie, Wyoming. 

At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Startup 

Masters-WY has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold credit repair and funding 

services to consumers throughout the United States. Startup Masters- WY transacts or 

bas transacted business in this district and throughout the United States. 

6 
13. Defendant Startup Masters NJ Inc. ("Startup Masters-NJ") is a New Jersey corporation 

with its principal place of business at 250 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Lawnside, New 

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

Startup Masters-NJ has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold credit repair and 

funding services to consumers throughout the United States. Startup Masters-NJ 

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

14. Defendant First Incorporation Services Inc. ("First lncorp--WY") is a Wyoming 

corporation with its principal place of business at 261 South Main Street, Suite 335, 

Newtown, Connecticut. First Incorp-WY has also used mailing addresses of24B 

Dodgingtown Road, Newtown, Connecticut and 868 N 7th Street, Laramie, Wyoming. 

At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, First 

Incorp-WY has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold credit repair and funding 

services to consumers throughout the United States. First Incorp-WY transacts or has 

transacted business in this district and throughout the United States. 

15. Defendant First Incorporation Services Inc. ("First Incorp-FL") is a Florida 

corporation with its principal place of business at 986 Finrod Way, Casselberry, Florida. 

At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, First 

Incorp-FL has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold credit repair and funding 

services to consumers throughout the United States. First Incorp-FL transacts or has 

transacted l>usiness in this district and throughout the United States. 

16. Defendant Douglas C. Filter is or was an owner, officer, director, or manager of Grand 

Teton, 99th Floor, Atomium-\VY, Demand Dynamics, First lncorp-WY, and Startup 

7 
Masters-WY. He is an authorized signatory on many ofDefendants' bank accounts. 

He is also listed as the registrant and contact person for many of 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 Filter, in connection with the 

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

the United States. 

17. Defendant Marcio G. Andrade is or was an owner, officer, director, or manager of99th 

Floor, Demand Dynamics, and Mait Management. He is an authorized signatory on 

many of Defendants' bank accounts. He is also listed as the contact for Defendants' 

telecommunications services. Defendants' Internet websites are assigned to an account 

in Defendant Andrade's name and domain registration fees are often paid with his 

personal credit card. 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 Andrade, in 

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

district and throughout the United States. 

18. Defendants Grand Teton, 99th Floor, Mait Management, Demand Dynamics, 

Atomium-WY, Atomium-CO, Startup Masters-WY, Startup Masters-NJ, First 

Ineorp-WY, and First Tncorp-FL ( collectively, "Corporate Defendants") haye operated 

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

violations oflaw alleged below. Defendants have conducted the business practices 

8 
described below through an interrelated network of companies that have common 

ownership, officers, managers, business functions, employees, and office locations, and 

that 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. Defendants Filter and Andrade have 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 

19. 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 

Overview 

20. Since at least 2014, Defendants have operated an unlawful credit repair scam that has 

deceived consumers across the country. 1brough Internet websites, telemarketing, and 

unsolicited emails and text messages, Defendants claim they can improve consumers' 

credit scores by removing all negative items and hard inquiries from their credit reports 

or by adding seasoned tradelines to their credit histories. In reality, however, 

Defendants typically have not been able to repair consumers' credit·or raise their credit 

scores. 

21. Defendants routinely take prohibited advance fees for their credit repair services and do 

not make required disclosures regarding those services. In addition, Defendants offer 

9 
consumers the option of financing these fees without making critical credit transaction 

disclosures. \Vhen processing fees, Defendants routinely engage in electronic fund 

transfers from consumers' bank accounts without obtaining proper authorization, and use 

remotely created checks to pay for credit repair services they have offered through a 

telemarketing campaign, in violation of the TSR. 

22. When victimized consumers complain about the lack of results or attempt to reverse 

Defendants' charges, Defendants threaten them with legal action for violating purported 

anti-disparagement and anti-chargeback clauses. 

Defendants' Deceptive Internet Websites 

23. To induce consumers to purchase their credit repair services, Defendants maintain 

numerous Internet websites, including deletionexpert.com, inquirybusters.com, and 

toptradelines.com, as well as dedicated YouTube channels, on which they make 

deceptive claims regarding their services. 

Deceptive Claims-Regarding Removal of Negative Information and Hard l11quiries 

24. Through their Deletion Expert brand, Defendants have claimed that they can successfully 

remove negative information from consumers' credit histories or credit reports, even 

when the information is accurate and not obsolete. Defendants claim that this activity 

will significantly increase consumers' credit scores. 

25. For example, Defendants' Intemet website deletionexpert.com has the made the 

following statements: 

• DeletionExpert.com Keeps Fighting Until ALL of Your Negatives are GONE! 

• GET SERIOUS. GET RES UL TS. WE FIGHT THEM UNTIL THEY COME 

OFF - 100% SUCCESS RATE GUARANTEED! 

10 
• REMOVE }\LL NEGATIVE ITEMS FROM CREDIT REPORT IN 3 TO 6 

WEEKS 

• Guaranteed to Remove ALL Negative Items on your Credit 

• Credit Score Effects: Credit Scores typically go UP by 50 to 250 Points, all else 

being equal · 

26. Defendants' website also contains several puiported success stories of consumers who 

had negative information removed from their credit reports. Th.e testimonials include the 

following statements: 

• I've been trying for years to get my credit record cleaned up. I had been writing to 

companies and the bureaus and never seemed to get a response. When my then 

boyfriend proposed, I knew I had to take action because I didn't want to start off 

my marriage with bad credit. So, I called DeletionExpert.com. They were very 

proactive in getting me the results I was looking for. They personally wrote letters 

that got read and ·got a response. In just a matter of weeks, my credit was restored 

and my credit score even went up! 

• He began working with Deletion Experts and they went to work right away 

contesting negative entries on his reports. Rather than using form letters, they 

approached each challenge intelligently and fully documented. They used facts 

and logic that was undisputed in most instances. George was happy with the way 

the DE team worked for him, but once he got a copy of his credit report from 

TransUnion, He literaJiy jumped for joy- his score had jumped from 675 to 790. 

• With some of my last savings, he hired DeletionExpert.com. For a minor 

investment, DeletionExpert.com looked over his credit reports and began making 

the credit bureaus remove negative accounts. They didn't just send in basic form 

letters either, they wrote up their rebuttals by hand - the computers could not read 

them and a real person had to consider my situation. His credit situation. 

improved, due to FCRA regulations. DeletionExpert.com was able to bring his 

TransUnion score from a 680 to a 775, and his scores through the other bureaus 

went up about the same. His credit scores are now a more accurate representation 

of his eligibility and he can begin applying for loans with confidence. 

' 

27. Through their Inquiry Busters brand, Defendants have claimed that they can successfully 

remove hard inquiries from consumers' credit histories or credit reports, even when the 

11 
information is accurate. Defendants claim that this activity will significantly increase 

consumers' credit scores. 

28. For example, Defendants' Internet website inquirybusters.com has the made the 

following statements: 

• REMOVE ALL QUALIFIED INQUIRIES IN 3 TO 6 WEEKS 

• WE FIGHT THEM UNTIL THEY COME OFF - l 00% SUCCESS RA TE 

GUARANTEED! 

• GUARANTEED CREDIT INQUIRY REMOVAL 

• Guaranteed to Remove ALL Qualified Hard Credit Inquiries. 

Qualified Inquiries: All Inquiries that are not from Creditors with whom you 

have an Open Account. 

Credit Score Effects: Credit Scores typically go UP by IO to 30 Points, all else 

being equal.). 

29. Defendants' website also contains several purported success stories of consumers who 

had hard inquiries removed from their credit reports. The testimonials include the 

following statements: 

• To begin with, they studied my credit report and detected as many as 17 inquiries. 

They disputed every inquiry in the special way they do it. I'm not quite sure how 

they do it. It looked liked [ sic J they fought it with the FCT [sic) and some other 

places. It took about 4 weeks and all 17 inquiries were gone and my credit scores 

went up! And I ended up with 775 from TransUoion, 780 from Experian and 745 

from Equifax. 

• Kelly needed $35,000 afer [sic] an emergency, but her inquiries were holding her 

back ... JnquiryBusters.com fixed it up by fighting her 18 inquiries. She got her 

credit back and the funding she needed. 

• Michael's Jnquiries Kept Him From Getting Credit. .. but lnquiryBusters.com 

disputed his inquiries and got him FUNDED. His. new scores Experian - 795, 

TransUnion - no and Equifax - 765. He got approvals for $85,000! 

• Veronica Raised her Credit Scores from 599 to 684 in 39 days with 

InquiryBusters.com. Veronica's results are the norm here at Inquiry Busters. 

12 
30. To remove negative infonnation and hard inquiries, Defendants state that they use one of 

two methods: fast track credit sweep (or expedited option) and manual credit repair. 

31. Defendants make the following statements regarding the fast track credit sweep/expedited 

option: 

• What is a Fast Track Credit Sweep? 

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires Credit Bureaus to remove all 

Accounts resulting from Identity Theft from your Credit Report. A Credit Sweep 

is the process by which we use these sections of the FCRA to force Credit 

Bureaus to remove Negative Accounts from your Credit Report. We do this by 

using a proprietary method we've developed to facilitate and speed-up this 

process. 

• How Long Does the Fast Track Credit Sweep Take? 

In the first days, we analyze your credit reports and select negative items for 

deletion. We then prepare and notarize the Identity Theft Affidavit. With that 

document, we show you bow to file a police report. We then send the 

documentation, including the police report to the Creditor, the Credit Bureaus and 

the FTC. We begin monitoring your report to see the negative reports drop off, 

those that remain, we re-submit claims until all negative items are deleted. Under 

the FTC requirements, these should be eliminated immediately, so we expect all 

to be gone within three weeks after our preparation time. 

• Deletion Experts have extensive experience in rooting out identity theft damages, 

and working with the credit reporting bureaus to remove them from your report. 

Our proprietary Credit Sweep process will discover Identity Theft markers 

through a thorough evaluation of your credit reports from all three credit bureausTransUnion, Experian and Equifax. Today, an identity theft incident is not 

necessarily identifiable through major purchases that ring alanns at your lender's 

fraud prevention department. Billions of dollars every year are stolen and credit 

blemishes are reaJJzed with small thefts running under the radar. We use our 

own programs to find the subtle identifiers and take action against them, including 

using that proof to restore your good credit. 

• If you need to completely Delete~ Mortgages and/or Open Auto/Boat/RV 

Loans, then you cannot do Manual Credit Repair (MCR) and must do Fast-Track 

Credit Sweep instead in order to block the Negative(s) from your Credit Reports. 

• This Method will achieve the FASTEST Results possible. 

32. Defendants make the following statements regarding the manual credit repair option: 

• The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires Credit Bureaus to remove all 

incorrect and/or unverifiable infonnation from your Credit Report, however, their 

13 
Systems and Procedures have been setup to automatically read, classify, and 

dispose of Credit Disputes they receive as fast as possible, without any human 

intervention at all, and without any real verification of the infonnation aside from 

a quick automated check into the Creditor's reporting system .... This 

"Verification Process" typically happens within a few seconds and is fully 

automated, which means the Disputes Letters are never even read, and no 

investigation is performed at all - The System just spits back to the Consumer the 

information reported by the Creditor and claims the infom1ation was ''Verified". 

This behavior is actually illegal, but Credit Bureaus get away with it all the time. 

The only way to get around their automated systems and get dispute letters read 

by a real human being is to use what we call "Manual Credit Repair". 

• What is Manual Credit Repair (MCR)? When Negative Items are disputed using 

Custom-Made, Unique, Hand-Written Letters, we call that Manual Credit Repair 

(MCR). Because the Letters are written by hand, with a variety of different hand 

writing styles, and particularly hand-writing that is hard for OCR Scanners to 

identify, these Letters end up under the "Manual Review" stack, where a Real 

Human Being will be assigned to read each Letter and detennine what action to 

take. When this happens, the chances of getting a Negative Item removed is 

increased dramatically. · 

• 3-Way Disputes with Creditors, Credit Bureaus, and FTC. We simultaneously 

dispute each Negative Item with a dispute letter to the Creditors, the Credit 

Bureaus, and the FTC. In many cases, we will not get a response, which 

automatically qualifies the negative to be deleted. In other cases, one or the other 

target will be the right one to grant our requests and call for the elimination of the 

negatives. This 3-Way Dispute method is much more effective than the 

One-Way or Two-Way Methods used by the vast majority of Credit Repair 

Companies out there. 

• Unique, Labor-Intensive, Hand-Written Disputes that Beat OCR Scanners 

• Negative Items that must always be removed via Manual Credit Repair (MCR): 

Government-Guaranteed Loans, Public Records, Tax Liens, and Late Payments 

on Open Mortgages and/or Open Auto/Boat/RV Loans. 

·• This method, although effective, is not as FAST as the Fast-Track Credit Sweep 

option. 

33. Defendants' websites encourage consumers to select the fast track/expedited option over 

the manual credit repair option by stating that the completion time for the former is 

typically " I to 3 Weeks," while the completion time for the latter is "3 to 6 Weeks." 

14 
Defendants' websites also include the following "disclosure": "Disputes may be 

submitted to Credit Bureaus and Creditors with an Identify Theft Report (Expedited 

Option), or without it, and you hereby acknowledge and agree that disputes will take 

longer to produce res.ults without benefiting from the presence of an Identity Theft 

Report." 

Deceptive Claims Regarding Tradelines 

34. Through their Top Tradelines brand, Defendants have claimed that they can successfully 

add "seasoned tradelines" to consumers' credit histories. "Tradelines" or "credit lines" 

refer to individual credit card accounts or lines of credit. For a fee, Defendants offer to 

register consumers as "additional authorized users" on one or several credit cards or line 

of credit accounts held by unrelated account holders with long-standing positive payment 

histories (a practice also known as "piggybacking" credit). Defendants claim this will 

result in the positive payment history being reflected on the paying consumer's credit 

history or credit report, thus significantly increasing their credit score. 

35. For example, Defendants' Internet website toptradelines.com has the made the following • 

statements: 

• From 620 to 780+ in 3 Weeks? Yes! 

• Open from 30-60 Days. Permanent Score Improvement! 

• Shows as OPEN for I Full Billing Cycle (30 Days). Can show as open for 

60-Days for an extra fee. Continues improving your Credit History and Credit 

Score even after 30 or 60 Days. 

• When you purchase Seasoned Tradelines from us, you are purchasing Real 

Authorized User Accounts and WE GUARANTEE that each Tradeline will 

A: Have a Perfect Payment History. Always Paid on Time. Never Late. 

B: Have at least the specified Age and Credit Limit. 

C: Have a Ba.lance that does not exceed 20% of the Credit Limit. 

15 
D: Will post to all 3 Credit Bureaus (Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion) 

no later than 14 Calendar Days after the specified Reporting Date. 

E: Will increase your Credit Scores 

• Guaranteed to boost credit scores. Guaranteed to post on all 3 credit bureaus. 

• If your Scores are under 700, then we can add Seasoned Tradelines to 

dramatically increase your Credit Scores and the overall Quality of your Personal 

Credit History in only 3 Weeks! It's common to see Credit Scores jump up 50 to 

150 Points in 3 Weeks - This is the Real Deal and we guarantee the Tradelines 

wilJ post to your Credit Report. 

36. Defendants' website also contains several purported success stories of consumers who 

had tradelines added to their credit reports resulting in improved credit scores. The 

testimonials include the following statements: 

• Adding I tradeline to your credit history already has a huge impact on your credit 

score. Detarius wanted $50,000 in credit so he could enjoy life a little more. 

Before working with Top Tradelines, his credit scores were 660 (Equifax), 663 

(TransUnion) and 683 (Experian). After adding just one seasoned tradeline to his 

credit history, his credit scores improved to 721 on Equifax and 728 for both 

Experian and TransUnion. 

• Harvey.from Augusta, GA is another of our happy clients who found success in 

increasing his credit score by adding seasoned tradelines to his credit report. He 

needed $25,000 for his kid's college but wasn't sure whether he will be approvep 

based on his credit report. He found Top Tradelines and purchased the bronze 

package. In Jess than 30 days after the tradeUnes were added, his credit score 

improved to 765 (Experian), 748 (TransUnion) and 702 (Equifax). 

• I purchased the Bronze Package and all the Tradelines posted to my Credit within 

about 3 Days of the Reporting Date promised and I now have an 801 Score on 

Equifax, 790 on TrausUnion, and 784 on Experian - Incredible! I had ZERO 

Credit when I started and Marcio walked me through the process and made it very 

easy for me. 

• I purchased the Gold Package on TopTradelines.com and within six weeks my 

credit ratings had risen by more than 150 points on average across the three credit 

bureaus. I now have scores of716 on Experian, 729 on TransUnion, and 710 on 

Equifax. I was amazed at how quickly my credit rating increased. 

• Within 54 days, my score went up from 610 to 700! I really didn't have to do 

anything ... just piggyback off of someone else's great credit. 

16 
37. Through their CreditCardCashFJow brand, Defendants have also solicited consumers 

with credit cards or line of credit accounts that have long-standing positive payment 

histories. Defendants offer to pay these account holders to add other consumers as 

authorized users to their accounts, including third-parties who are not family members or 

otherwise in close personal relationship with the account holder. 

38. For example, Defendants' Internet website creditcardcashflow.com has the made the 

following statements: 

• WE TURN CARDS INTO CASH FLOW! 

• Earn Cash Helping Others Boost Credit Scores 

• WHAT IF YOUR Credit Cards PAID YOU S2,000 EACH MONTH? 

• IS THIS 100% LEGAL? Yes, it is l 00% Legal. You can read all about it on 

Wikipedia. 

• ARE BANKS AND CREDIT CARD COMPANIES "OK" WITH THIS 

PROGRAM? Yes, Banks and Credit Card Companies allow you to add 

Authorized Users on your Credit Card Accounts, and they can be ANYONE, and 

can be added for A.NY REASON. 

• Will the Authorized Users receive a Credit Card in the mail? No, never. All 

Authorized User Credit Cards are mailed to the Primary Account Holder (You). 

You must then activate each Credit Card and use them for some ofyour existing 

Day-to-Day Expenses, such as Gas, Groceries, Online Purchases, etc, in order to 

show the Bank that the Authorized User Accounts are actually being used. 

• Is there any risk that an authorized user could get access to my credit card 

account? .. . all the Authorized User Credit Cards are mailed to your- Home 

Address on file with your Bank, it would be impossible for anyone from our 

Company or any of the Authorized Users to access your Account. 

• CREDIT CARD ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: 

Must allow Authorized Users to be added Online or over the Phone. 

Must report Authorized Users to all 3 Credit Bureaus each Month . 

. . . Tf you are not sure, call your Bank and find out: 

17 
What is the Maximum# of Authorized Users that I can have on my Credit 

Card Account at any point in tin1e? (The more, the merrier) 

How often can I change/replace Authorize Users (Monthly is best, every 2 

months is Acceptable, every 3 Months or more won't work) 

Do I need to provide Photo ID, Social Security Card, or any other 

Documentation for each Authorized User I add (You need to get a "No") 

Defendants' Deceptive Telemarketing Activity 

39. Defendants' websites list telephone numbers for consumers to contact Defendants for 

more information. The websites also have a sign-up page on which consumers can enter 

their contact information (including name, address, cell phone number, and email 

address) as well as their social security number and date of birth. 

40. Defendants also send unsolicited emails and text messages to consumers to market their 

credit repair services. For ex.ample, an email promoting Defendants' Deletion Expert 

brand was sent from the email address support@deletionexpert.com and contained the 

subject line, "GUARANTEED Removal of Negative Items." The text of the email 

states,"Jim the banker is glad he came to us to improve his credit," and, "We will remove 

your negative items FAST." Another email sent from support@deletionexpert.com had 

a subject line, "Affected by recession? We can help." The text of the email states, "The 

recession hurt George's business. Luckily, we were able to help him by contesting 

negative entries and using our expertise to bring back his credit." The emails then 

provide telephone numbers and invite consumers to contact Defendants for more 

information. 

41 . In many instances, after consumers submit their contact infol"lJJation to Defendants via 

their websites, Defendants' representatives call consumers. In other instances, 

18 
consumers contact Defendants using the telephone numbers listed on Defendants' 

websites or in Defendants' unsolicited emails and text messages. In all these instances, 

Defendants' representatives make many of the same representations included on their 

websites. 

42. Defendants' Deletion Expert and Inquiry Busters representatives promise consumers that 

all negative items and hard inquiries will be removed from their credit histories, and that 

their credit scores will increase significantly through Defendants' efforts, in some 

instances by as much as 100 points within one to two months. Defendants' 

representatives ~xplain that they send written letters to the credit bureaus to challenge 

negative items and inquiries. In some instances, D_efendants' representatives encourage 

consumers to file an identity theft affidavit to remove negative infonnation and inquiries, 

even when consumers explain that they were not victims of identity theft. 

43. Defendants' Top Tradelines representatives tell consumers that Defendants will add new 

tradelines to consumers' credit reports and that within a few weeks consumers will see a 

significant increase in their credit score, io some instances by as much as 100 points 

within one to two months. 1n numerous instances, Defendants' Top Tradelines 

representatives promote the services of Defendants' Deletion Expert and Inquiry Busters 

brands, explaining that consumers need to clear their credit reports before the tradelines 

can be added. 

Defendants Do Not Follow Through On Credit Repair Promises 

44. In numerous instances, Defend~ts fail to remove negative information or hard inquiries 

from consumers' credit histories or add promised tradelines. Accordingly, in numerous 

19 
instances, consumers who purchase Defendants' credit repair services do not obtain the 

promised improvements to their credit scores. 

Defendants' Unlawful Enrollment Process 

45. To enroll, Defendants typically require consumers to email a copy of their driver's 

license, social security number, utility bill, and credit card, debit card or bank account 

information. 

46. In numerous instances, after providing Defendants with this information, Defendants 

instruct consumers to sign electronically a contract via an online notary platform. ln 

numerous instances, the contract does not contain a full and detailed description of the 

credit repair services to be performed for the consumer, including all guarantees of 

performance, and an estimate of the date by which the performance of the services (to be 

performed by Defendants or any other person) will be complete or the length of the 

period necessary to perform such services. Neither does the contract contain a 

conspicuous statement in bold face type, in immediate proximity to the space reserved for 

the consumer's signature on the contract, which reads as follows: "You may cancel this 

contract without penalty or obligation at any time before midnight of the 3rd business day 

after the date on which you signed the contract. See the attached notice of cancellation 

form for an explanation of this right." 

47. Instead, the contract is only an authorization for Defendants to charge the consumer's 

credit or debit card or debit their bank account. 

48. lo numerous instances, Defendants fail to provide consumers with copies of the contracts 

consumers have signed. 

20 
49. In numerous instances, Defendants fail to provide consumers with a written statement 

containing prescribed language conceming "Consumer Credit File Rights Under State 

and Federal Law" before any contract or agreement is executed. 

50. In numerous instances, Defendants fail to provide consumers with a "Notice of 

Cancellation" fonn, in duplicate, containing prescribed language concerning consumers' 

three-day right to cancel that consumers can use to cancel the contract. 

51. Defendants bury the "Consumer Credit File Rights Under State and Federal Law" and 

cancellation right statements on their Internet websites on a separate "Tenns of Use" 

page. The statements are located at the bottom of the page after 50 paragraphs. 

Nothing on the websites' homepages or sign-up pages indicates that consumers should go 

to the "Terms ofUse" page, nor is there any method by which Defendants ensure that 

consumers have read the page. 

Defendants' Unlawful Financing and Billing Practices 

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

consumers to make an upfront payment for these services. Their Deletion.Expert and 

lnquiryBusters brands typically cost $1,999, and Defendants offer a combined rate for 

both services of$2,999. In some instances, Defendants' representatives offer to lower 

the cost if consumers enroll on the phone. Defendants' Top Tradelines brand varies in 

price depending upon the purported tradelines to be purchased. With respect to all three 

brands, however, Defendants require consumers either to pay the entire fee upfront or pay 

a percentage upfront and finance the remainder. 

21 
53. For their DeletionExpert and InquiryBusters brands, Defendants provide consumers the 

option to pay the entire amount upfront, or pay either 50% or 25% down with the 

remainder plus a finance charge paid over 3 months. For their InquiryBusters brand, 

Defendants have also provided consumers the option to pay either 50% or 25% down 

with the remainder and a finance charge paid over 6 months. 

54. For the option to pay over three months, Defendants' websites advertise a finance charge 

of20% of the amount to be financed. For the payment over six months option, 

Defendants' websites advertise a finance charge of 40% of the amount to be financed. 

In both cases, Defendants do not disclose the annual percentage rate. 

S5. For example, for the option to pay 50% down with additional payments over three 

months, Defendants' deletionexpert.com website advertises the following tem1s: 

24171365 Support vi-, Live Chat;. PhOt')e, or E·M:>il. 

S1QK SUq;ty Bond • SJ,S MIDl90 fnsurancc Policy+ lawMt:fri£r Guaa,m~. 

Tons or S Star Rmt'WS on ShOPPUADDf'O'lt!:d:fem. 5fttJfbbfr.com, TrustPllot.com ;ind more. P.Xkagc* 

i •$1,999Fl.dlCredftS~ . $2.,999FtJl!CrtditSweep4 lflqllil)'.8usrers.c'omf§l~OA= 

Rttular Price for lnqt.1il'Y8t1sters.com rnquiry Remov11 Strvke is $1,999. l~ Flouse Financing Option• 

_ 1()()9& ~ull Pt1yment. -t·509b Down. J=inaoce the Balance OVtr 3 Months. • 2S96 Down. Rntal')Ge me Salance O¥t:I' 3 Monchs. 

Firwindng Terms bplanadon 

Guaranteed to Re-move AU. Nepdvr ltetns. 

S999 Down{~). Rcma.inlng Balance paid ewer' 3 Month~ ,.;a Monthty Payments. 

Down Paymenc $999 

l=inanced Amount: $1,000  S200 FJnance Charge (209t,of J:inanCC'd Amouno-= $1,200 Tot.11 Payback 

Monthly P.ym,ent for 3 Months: S400 

56. Consumers can remit payment to Defendants via credit or debit card, electronic bank 

transfer, and PayPal. In some instances, Defendants have created or caused to be created 

remotely created checks as payment for their credit repair services. 

22 
57. Io numerous instances, shortly after consumers provide Defendants v.'ith their billing 

information, Defendants charge consumers' credit or debit cards or v.'ithdraw payment 

from consumers' bank accounts before fully performing the promised credit repair 

services; In some instances, when consumers select to pay Defendants over time, 

Defendants charge multiple paymenis at or around the same time. 

58. In numerous instances, in cases in which consumers provide Defendants with a debit card 

or bank account information to make payments over time, Defendants have debited 

consumers' bank accounts multiple times. In numerous instances, Defendants did not 

obtain written authorization signed or similarly authenticated by consumers authorizing 

the recurring electronic fund transfers from their accounts and did not subsequently 

provide consumers with a copy of such a written authorization. 

59. Payments made by consumers are deposited into one of several of Defendants' merchant 

processing acc~unts that Defendants have established to process consumers' credit or 

debit cards or electronic bank transfers. The payments typically appear on consumers' 

bank or card statements with billing descriptors of "Atomium Corp," "Startup Masters 

NJ," "First Incorporation Services," or similar names. Payments processed through 

these merchant processing accounts are then transferred into one of several of 

Defendants' operating bank accounts. For example, payments processed through 

merchant accounts in the name of Defendant Atomium-CO are transferred to bank 

accounts in the name of Defendant Atomium- WY. Similarly, payments processed 

through merchant accounts in the name of Defendant First Incorp-FL are transferred to 

bank accounts in the name of Defendant First Incorp-WY. And payments processed 

23 
through merchant accounts in the name of Defendant Startup Masters-NJ are transferred 

to bank accounts in the name of Defendant Startup Masters-WY. 

Defendants' Gag Clauses and Legal Threats 

60. In addition to their purported credit repair services, Defendants also market several other 

products through trade names including FastUnsecured, which purports to assist 

consumers in obtaining unsecured personal funding at low rates; CorporateCashCredit, 

which purports to assist small businesses in obtaining unsecured corporate funding at low 

rates; WholesaleShelfCorporations, which purports to sell already-registered corporations 

under the presumption that aged corporations are more likely to receive funding from 

financial institutions; FundingCEO, which purports to provide consumers with a business 

start-up kit to sell Defendants' other brands to consumers; and HighRiskNinja, which 

purports to assist businesses that have had their merchant accounts shut down because of 

high charge-backs or bad credit to get a merchant account. Defendants market these 

brands through various Internet websites including fastunsecured.com, 

corporatecashcredit.com, wholesaleshelfcorporations.com, fundingceo.com, and 

highriskninja.com. 

6 I . Defendants' form contracts, including the "Terms of Use" page on their various Internet 

websites including deletionexpert.com, inquirybusters.com, toptradelines.com, 

fastunsecured.com, corporatecashcredit.com, wholesaleshelfcorporations.com, 

fundingceo.com, highriskninja.com, and creditcardcashflow.com, contain provisions that 

bar or restrict the ability of consumers purchasing Defendants' services from engaging in 
reviews, perfonnance assessments, and similar analyses of Defendants' goods, services, 

or conduct. 

62. For example, the "Terms of Use" page of Defendants' websites deletionexpert.com, 

inquirybusters.com, toptradelines.com, fastunsecured.com, 

wholesalesbelfcorporations.com, corporatecashcredit.com, and fundingceo.com include 

the following provisions: 

U. Mutual Non-Disparagement. You agree and warrant that you shall not 

disparage or comment negatively, directly or indirectly, about Grand Teton, or its 

Team. We agree and warrant that we shall not disparage or comment negatively, 

directly or indirectly about you; except we may reports debts owed by you to us to 

Credit Reporting Agencies. Disparagement shall be defined as any remarks, 

comments or statements that impugn the character, honesty, integrity, morality, 

business acumen or abilities in connection with any aspect of our dealings with 

each other. You and Grand Teton agree and acknowledge that this 

non-disparagement provision is a material term of this Agreement; the absence of 

which would have resulted in Grand Teton refusing to enter into this Agreement. 

20. Liquidated Damages. In some instances, a breach of these Terms could cause 

damages, but proving the actual damages would be impossible. These instances 

shall result in the corresponding liquidated damages, which are a reasonable 

pre-estimate of the damages: 

* * * 

3. Each time You violate the Non-Disparagement terms, the liquidated damages 

will be $25,000, for each violation. 

4. If You don't pay an amount due within thirty (30) days after we send you a late 

payment notice, then the liquidated damages will be three times the total amount 

you were billed but failed to pay. 

5. If'Y ou attempt to pay your balance due, by an altered or fictitious payment 

instrument, the liquidated damages will be three times the amount of the balance 

due. 

These provisions follow several un-numbered paragraphs and appear as the seventeenth 

and twenty-fifth of fifty paragraphs on the page. 

25 
63. As another example, Defendants' websites highriskninja.com and 

creditcardcashflow.com include the following provision: 

NON-DISPARAGEMENT: 

Our Reputation is of utmost importance to us. You hereby agree and warrant and 

that you will not disparage or comment negatively, directly or indirectly, about 

our company, our officers and management, and/or current or former employees 

and/or contractors. Disparagement shall be defined as any disparaging remarks, 

comments or statements that impugn the character, honesty, integrity, morality or 

business acumen or abilities in connection with any aspect of the operation our 

business. In the event we find any disparagement resulting directly or indirectly 

from you, you hereby understand and agree that such disparagement will cause 

great financial damages to us, the extent of which will be impossible to measure, 

and you th.erefore agree to pay liquidated damages in the amount of$25,000 for 

every incidence of disparagement caused directly or indirectly by you. 

64. In addition, Defendants' "Terms of Use" contain provisions that discourage consumers 

from exercising in a timely fashion their dispute rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act 

( sometimes referred to as a "chargeback"), even when Defendants failed to perform as 

promised. 

65. For example, the "Terms of Use." page of Defendants' websites deletionexpert.com, 

inquirybusters.com, toptradelines.com, fastunsecured.com, 

wholesaleshelfcorporations.com, corporatecashcredit.com, and fundingceo.com include 

the following provisions: 

15. Payment Dispute Rules. You warrant that no credit card payment, e-check or 

other payment made to Grand Teton by you, or a third party for your benefit, shall 

be disputed, or a chargeback filed with the credit card issuer, and no Claim shall 

be made against our Surety Bond under any circumstance, until after you have 

completed sequentially the three step procedure below: 

First: Attempt first to settle the dispute by online mediation administered by the 

American Arbitration Association under its Commercial Mediation Procedures. 

This can be·done here: https://apps.adr.org/webfUe/ 

Second: Submit a claim to be settled by binding arbitration administered by the 

American Arbitration Association in accordance with its Commercial Arbitration 

Rules and judgment on the award rendered by a single arbitrator may be entered 

26 
in any court having jurisdiction thereof. This can be done here: 

https://ww'l";.adr.org/webftle/faces/home 

Third: File a claim against our Surety Bond. 

Each time you wish to dispute a payment, these rules must be followed without 

exception under any circumstance. Each appeal by You, or a third party of a 

disputed payment decision You or the third party lost counts as a separate 

disputed payment for purposes of this section 15 and section 20. 

20. Liquidated Damages. In some instances, a breach of these Terms could cause 

damages, but proving the actual damages would be in1possib!e. These instances 

shall result in the corresponding liquidated daniages, which are a reasonable 

pre-estimate of the daniages: 

I. Each time You violate the Payment Dispute Rules, the liquidated daniages will 

be three times the amount of each of your disputed payment(s) to us, but not less 

than $1,000. 

* * * 

4. If You don't pay an amount due within thirty (30) days after we send you a late 

payment notice, then the liquidated damages will be three times the total amount 

you were billed but failed to pay. 

5. lf You attempt to pay your balance due, by an altered or fictitious payment 

instrument, the liquidated damages will be three times the amount of the balance 

due. 

These provisions follow several un-numbered paragraphs and appear as the twentieth and 

twenty-fifth of fifty paragraphs on the page. 

66. Defendants' websites highriskninja.com and creditcardcashflow.com include the 

following provision: 

CREDIT CARD DISPUTES/CHARGEBACKS: 

By using your Credit Card, you hereby agree that you will not, under any 

circumstance, initiate any Dispute/Chargeback with your Card Issuer until you 

have sequentially completed the three step process below: 

First: Attempt first to settle the dispute by online mediation administered by the 

American Arbitration Association under its Commercial Mediation Procedures. 

Second: Submit a claim to be settled by binding arbitration administered by the 

American Arbitration Association in accordance with its Expedited Commercial 

Arbitration Rules and judgment on the award rendered by a single arbitrator may 

be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 

Third: File a claim against our Surety Bond. 

27 
If you initiate a Dispute/Chargeback without sequentially completing the three 

step process above, you hereby agree and understand that such action will cause 

severe damage to our Merchant Processing Relationship and that 200% of the 

Full Amount of the Disputed Transaction(s) will become immediately due and 

payable to us as Liquidated Damages. If you then fail to pay the Liquidated 

Damages owed within 14 Calendar Days, your Account will be turned over to 

Collections and immediately reported to all 3 Credit Bureaus as a Collection 

Account. 

67. In numerous instances, contracts provided to consumers who purchase Defendants' credit 

repair services contain the following provisions: 

Payment Dispute Rules: 

You warrant that no credit card payment made to VENDOR by you, or a third 

party for your benefit, shall be disputed, or a chargeback filed with the credit card 

issuer under any circumstance until after you have completed sequentially the 

three-step procedure below: 

First: Attempt first to settle the dispute by online mediation administered by the 

American Arbitration Association under its Commercial Mediation Procedures. 

This can be done here: bttps://apps.adr.org/webftle/ 

Second: Submit a claim to be settled by binding arbitration administered by the 

American Arbitration Association in accordance with its Expedited Commercial 

Arbitration Rules (Written Submission Only) and judgment on the award rendered 

by a single arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. This 

can be done here: https://www.adr.org/webftle/faces/home 

Third: File a Claim against our Surety Bond. 

Each time you wish to dispute a payment, these rules must be followed. Each 

appeal by You, or a third party of a disputed payment decision You or the third 

party lost counts as a separate disputed payment for purposes of this section. 

Liquidated Damages: 

In some instances, a breach in these Terms could cause damages, but proving the 

actual damages would be impossible. These instances shall result in the 

corresponding liquidated damages, which are a reasonable pre-estimate of the 

damages. Each time you violate the Payment Dispute Rules, the liquidated 

damages will be three times the amount of each of your disputed payment(s) to 

us, but not less than $1,000. 

CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT. I agree that this transaction is a Business 

Transaction. I also agree that ifI or the credit card holder, if applicable, dispute a 

payment made to VENDOR or if the transaction is reversed by the Merchant 

Processor for any reason, and I do not reimburse VENDOR within 3 business 

days via Wire Transfer or Bitcoin, I agree that VENDOR may immediately obtain 

a judgment for the original amount charged, plus the liquidated damages, along 

28 
with any and all costs of collections, court costs, and/or reasonable attorneys fees. 

Bv signing this form, I irrevocablv authorize any attorney to appear in any 

court of competent jurisdiction and confe1is a judgment against me without 

process in favor of the creditor for such amount as mav then appear unpaid 

hereon, and to consent to immediate execution upon such judgment 

68. According to the American Arbitration Association's website, a consumer would have to 

pay fees of at least $250 to initiate online mediation and $925 to initiate online 

arbitration. 

69. In some instances, when consumers file complaints with law enforcement or exercise 

their rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act by disputing a charge and seeking a 

chargeback when Defendants failed to perform as promised, Defendants respond by 

sending cease and desist letters and threatening to file lawsuits. 

70. For example, after one consumer filed a complaint with the Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection, Defendants' pwported lawyer sent the consumer a cease-and-desist 

letter advising the consumer, "to refrain from any further attempts ... to take any action 

that would be considered defamatory in nature." The letter closed with, "fy]our 

anticipated caoperation is appreciated and will dit:ectly serve to eliminate the need for 

further legal action." Another consumer received a letter from another of Defend.ants' 

purported lawyers stating, "Under your Contract with TopTradelines.com you are liable 

to Toptradelines for liquidated damages in the sum of $5,000 per breach of the 

non-disclosure provision and $25,000 per breach of the non-disparagement 

provision. Further under Florida law, it is unlawful to engage in defamation of 

another's character and reputation." That consumer had also initiated a dispute and 

chargeback request to his credit card that prompted Defendants' attorney to continue: 

29 
"Your failure to follow these procedures before submitting a Chargeback/Unauthorized 

charge dispute to your credit card company is a major breach of this Contract. In the 

Contract you agreed to pay Toptradelins.com liquidated damages equal to 200% of the 

amount of the charge initiated." 

71. Defendants have filed at least one lawsuit against a consumer for alleged breaches of 

these provisions. 

72. Defendants' anti-disparagement provisions have caused or are likely to cause consumers 

to refrain from commenting negatively about Defendants or their services. By depriving 

prospective purchasers of this truthful, negative information, Defendants' practices have 

resulted or are likely to result in consumers purchasing Defendants' services they would 

not otherwise have bought. 

73. Under Section 161 of the Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1666, consumers generally 

have 60 days from the date their credit card statement is transmitted to them to dispute a 

charge. Defendants' anti-dispute, anti-chargeback, and confession of judgment 

provisions have caused or are likely to cause consumers to f~rgo or delay exercising this 

right in a timely fashion to dispute charges imposed by Defendants, even when 

Defendants failed to perform as promised. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FfC ACT 

74. Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 4S(a), prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in or affecting commerce." 

75. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive acts or 

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

30 
76. 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 themselves cannot reasonably avoid 

and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 15 

U.S.C. § 45(n). 

Cou.otl 

Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Repair Services 

77. Through the means described in Paragraphs 20--44, Defendants. have represented, 

expressly or by implication, that Defendants will substantially improve consumers' credit 

scores or ratings by, amongst other things: 

a. removing negative information and hard inquiries from consumers' credit reports 

or profiles even where such information is accurate and not obsolete; and/or 

b. selling "tradelines" that will appear on consumers' credit reports or profiles. 

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

representations set forth in Paragraph 77 of this Complaint, such representations were 

false or misleading or not substantiated at the time Defendants made them. 

79. Therefore, Defendants' making of the representations as set forth in Paragraph 77 

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

U.S.C. § 45(a). 

Count II 

Unfair Use of Anti-Disparagement Provisions 

80. As set forth in Paragraphs 60-73 of the Complaint, in numerous instances, Defendants 

have used tactics including threats, intimidation, and non-disparagement clauses designed 

31 
to prevent consumers from speaking or publishing truthful or non-defamatory negative 

comments or reviews about Defendants and their services. 

81. Defendants' practices as described in Paragraph 80 have caused or are likely to cause 

substantial injury to consumers that is not reasonably avoidable by consumers and that is 

not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 

82. Therefore, Defendants' practices as set forth in Paragraph 80 constitute unfair acts or 

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

Count Ill 

Unfair Use of Anti-Cbargeback Provisions 

83. As set forth in Paragraphs 60-73 of the Complaint, in numerous instances, Defendants 

have used tactics including threats, intimidation, confessions of judgment, and 

anti-&spute/anti-chargeback clauses designed to prevent consumers from exercising their 

rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act to dispute charges Defendants placed on their 

credit cards. 

84. Defendants' practices as described in Paragraph 83 have caused or are likely to cause 

substantial injury to consumers that is not reasonably avoidable by consumers and that is 

not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 

85. Therefore, Defendants' practices as set forth in Paragraph 83 constitute unfair acts or 

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

VIOLATIONS OF THE CREDIT REP AIR ORGANIZATIONS ACT 

86. The Credit Repair Organizations Act took effect on April I, 1997, and has since that date 

remained in full force and effect. 

32 
87. The purposes ofCROA, according to Congress, are (1) to ensure that prospective buyers 

of the services of credit repair organizations are provided with the infonnation 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). 

88. 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 returns for the payment of money or 

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

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

89. Defendants are a "credit repair organization." 

90. 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). 

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

representation of the services of the credit repair organization. I 5 U.S.C. § 1679b(a)(3). 

92. 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. § 

!679b(b). 

33 
93. CROA requires credit repair organizations to provide consumers with a written statement 

containfog prescribed language concerning "Consumer Credit File Rights Under State 

and Federal Law" before any contract or agreement is executed. 15 U.S.C. § l679c(a). 

94. CROA requires credit repair organizations to include certain tenns and conditions in any 

contract or agreement for services, including (a) a full and detailed description of the 

services to be perfonned for the consumer, including all gu~antees of perfonnance and 

an estimate of the date by which the perfonnance of the services (to be performed by the 

credit repair organization or any other person) will be complete or the length oftheperiod necessary to perfom1 such services, 15_ U.S.C. § 1679d(b)(2), and (b) a 

conspicuous statement in hold-face type, in immediate proximity to the space reserved for 

the consumer's signature on the contract, which reads as follows: "You may cancel this 

contract without penalty or obligation at any time before midnight of the 3rd business day 

after the date on which you signed the contract See the attached notice of cancellation 

formforanexplanationofthisright." 15 U.S.C. § 1679d(b)(4). 

95. CROA requires credit repair organizations to provide consumers with a "Notice of 

Cancellation" fom1, in duplicate, containing prescribed language concerning consumers' 

three-day right to cancel that consumers can use to cancel the contract. 15 U.S.C. § 

l679e(b). 

96. CROA requires that any consumer who enters into a contract with a credit repair 

organization shall be given a copy of the completed contract and all disclosures required 

under the Act and a copy of any other document the credit repair organization requires 

the consumer to sign. 15 U.S.C. § 1679e(c). 

34 
97. Pursuant to Section 4IO(b)(J) ofCROA, 15 U.S.C. § 1679h(b)(I), any violation of any 

requirement or prorubition 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 

Section4JO(b)(2) ofCROA, 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 IV 

Encouraging Consumers to File False Identity Theft Affidavits 

98. 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 tenn is 

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

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

their credit worthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity to consumer reporting agencies, 

including encouraging consumers to file identity theft affidavits even when consumers 

have not, in fact, been victims of identity theft. 

99. Defendants have thereby violated Section 404(a)(l )(A) of CROA, 15 U.S.C. § 

1679b(a)(l)(A). 

CountV 

Misleading Use of Tradelines 

I 00. 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 

tem1 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 consum.ers' credit wortruness, credit standing, or credit capacity io persons who 

35 
have extended credit to the consumers or to whom the consumers have applied or are 

applying fo:r au extension of credit, including by representing that consumers are 

"additional authorized users" on one or several credit cards or line of credit accounts held 

by account holders when such consumers are not given access to the credit. 

101. Defendants have thereby violated Section 404(a)(l)(B) ofCROA, 15 U.S.C. § 

I 679b(a)(l )(B). 

Count VI 

Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Repair Services 

102. In numerous instances, in connection with the advertisi11g, 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) ofCROA, 15 U.S.C. § 1679a(3), Defendants have made 

untrue or misleading representations to consumers, including that Defendants will 

substantially ilnprove consumers' credit scores or ratings by, amongst other things: 

a. removing negative information and hard inquiries from consumers' credit reports 

or profiles even where such information is accurate and not obsolete; and/or 

b. sellrng "tradelines" that will appear on consumers'. credit reports or profiles. 

103. Defendants have thereby violated Section 404(a)(3) ofCROA, 15 U.S.C. § 

1679b(a)(3). 

Count VII 

Violation of Prohibition Against Charging Advance Fees For Credit Repair Services 

104. In numerous rnstances, 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 de.fined in Section 403(3) ofCROA, 15 U.S.C. § 1679a(3), Defendants have 

36 
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. 

105. Defendants have thereby violated Section 404(b) of CROA, 15 U.S.C. § 

1679b(b). 

CountVIll 

Failure to Make Required Disclosures 

106. In numerous instances, in connection with the 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. § 

I 679a(3), Defendants have failed to provide a written statement of"Consumer Credit File 

Rights Under State and Federal Law," in the form and manner required by CROA, to 

consumers before any contract or agreement was executed. 

I 07. Defendants have thereby violated Section 405(a) of CROA, 15 U.S.C. § I 679c(a). 

Count IX 

Failure to Include Required Terms and Conditions in Contracts 

108. Io numerous instances, in connection with the 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 failed to include in their consumer contracts the following 

required terms and conditions: ( a) a full and detailed description of the services to be 

performed for the consumer, including all guarantees of performance and an estimate of 

the date by which the performance of the services (to be performed by Defendants or any 

other person) will be complete or the length of the period necessary to perform such 

services, and (b) the specific conspicuous statement in bold face type, in immediate 

37 
proximity to the space reserved for the consumer's signature on the contract, regarding 

the consumers' right to cancel the contracts without penalty or obligation at any time 

before the third business day after the date on which consumers signed the contracts. 

109. Defendants have thereby violated Section 406(b )(2) and (4) of CROA, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1679d(b)(2) and (4). 

CountX 

Failure to Provide Cancellation Form 

110. In numerous instances, in connection with the 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. § 

l 679a(3), Defendants have failed to provide with their consumer contracts a form with 

the heading "Notice of Cancellation," in the form and manner required by CROA to 

consumers. 

11 I. Defendants have thereby violated Section 407(b) ofCROA, 15 U.S.C. § J679e(b). 

CountXI . 

Failure to Provide Consumers With Copy of Contract and Other Disclosures 

112. In numerous instances, in connection with the 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. § 

l 679a(3), Defendants have failed to provide consumers who entered into a contract with 

Defendants a copy of the completed contract and all disclosures required under CROA 

and a copy of any other document Defendants required the consumers to sign. 

l 13. Defendants have thereby violated Section 407(c) ofCROA, 15 U.S.C. § !679e(c). 

38 
VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 

114. Omgress 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 Telen1arketing Sales Rule in 1995, 

extensively amended it in 2003, and amended certain sections thereafter. 16 C.F.R. Part 

310. 

115. 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, 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). 

116. D1;:fendants 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). 

117. 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). 

118. 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 franie 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 

39 
with documentation in the fonn 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. § 3 I0.4(a)(2). 

119. 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). 

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

Section l 8(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 S(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

Count XII 

Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Repair Services 

121. 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 Defendants 

will substantially improve consumers' credit scores or ratings by, amongst other things: 

a. removing negative information and hard inquiries from consumers' eredit reports 

or profiles even where such information is accurate and not obsolete; and/or 

b. selling "tradelines" that will appear on consumers' credit reports or profiles. 

40 
122. Defendants' acts and practices, as described in Paragraph 121 of this Complaint, 

are deceptive telemarketing acts and practices that violate Section 310.3(a)(2)(iii) of the 

TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 3l0.3(a)(2)(iii). 

CountXIll 

Violation of Prohibition Against Charging Advance Fees For Credit Repair Services 

123. 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. 

124. Defendants' acts or practices, as described in Paragraph 123 of this Complaint, 

are abusive telemarketing acts or practices that violate Section 310.4(a)(2) of the TSR, 16 

C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(2). 

Count XIV 

Use Of Remotely Created Checks 

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

services, Defendants have created or caused to be created, directly or indirectly, a 

remotely created payment order as payment for credit repair services. 

41 
126. Defendants' acts or practices, as described in Paragraph 125 of this Complaint, 

are abusive telemarketing acts or practices that violate Section 310.4(a)(9) of the TSR, 16 

C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(9). 

VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSUMER REVIEW FAIRNESS ACT OF 2016 

127. In 2016, Congress passed the Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016, P.L. 

114-258, 15 U.S.C. § 45b. 

128. The CRF A defines "covered communication" to mean "a written, oral, or pictorial 

review, perfonuance assessment of, or other similar analysis of, including by electronic 

means, the goods, services, or conduct of a person by an individual who is party to a fonn 

contract with respect to which such person is also a party." 15 U.S.C. § 45b(a)(2). 

129. The CRF A defines "form contract" to mean "a contract with standardized terms 

(i) used by a person in the course of selling or leasing the person's goods or services; and 

(ii) imposed on an individual without a meaningful opportunity for such individual to 

negotiate the standardized terms." 15 U.S.C. § 45b(a)(3). 

130. Effective March 14, 2017, the CRFA renders void any provision of a form 

contract if such provision (A) prohibits or restricts the ability of an individual who is a 

party to the fonn contract to engage in a covered communication or (B) imposes a 

penalty or fee against an individual who is a party to the fonn contract for engaging in a 

covered communication. 15 U.S.C. § 45b(b)(l). 

13 l. Effective March 14, 2017, the CRFA prohibits any person from offering a form 

contract containing a provision described as void in sub-section (b) of the CRF A. 15 

U.S.C. § 45b(c). 

42 
132. Pursuant to the CFRA, a violation of sub-section (c) of the CRF A shall be treated 

as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed.under 

Section 18(a)(I)(B) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(a)(l)(b), and the FTC shall enforce 

the CFRA in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, 

powers, and duties as the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C. § 45b(d). Congress empowered the FTC 

to enforce the CRFA with respect to contracts in effect on or after December 14, 2017. 

15 U.S.C. § 45b(e). 

133. Defendants have offered "form contract[s]," as that term is defined in the CFRA. 

15 U.S.C. § 45b(a)(3). 

Count XV 

Unlawful Use of Anti-Disparagement Clauses 

134. In numerous instances on or after December 14, 2017, Defendants have offered, 

in the course of selling their credit repair services, form contracts containing provisions 

that (A) prohibit or restrict the ability of an individual who is a party to the fom1 contract 

to engage in a covered communication and/or (B) inlpose a penalty or fee against an 

individual who is a party to the fom1 contract for engaging in a covered communication. 

135. Defendants have thereby violated the CRFA, 15 U.S.C. § 45b(c). 

VIOLATIONS OF THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT AND REGULATION Z 

136. Under TILA, 15 U.S.C. §§ l 601-l 666j, and its implementing Regulation Z, 12 

C.F.R. Part l 026, advertisenients for closed-end credit must comply with applicable 

advertising provisions ofTILA and Regulation Z, including, but not limited to, Section 

1026.24 of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. §. 1026.24. 

43 
137. Under Section 144(a) and (d) ofTILA, 15 U.S.C. § J664(a) and (d), and Section 

!026.24(d) ofRegulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 1026.24(d), if any advertisement for closed-end 

credit states the amount or percentage of the downpayment, the number of payments or 

period of repayment, the amount of any.payment, or the amount of any finance charge, 

then the advertisement clearly and conspicuously shall state all of tbe following: the 

amount or percentage of the downpayment, the terms of_repayment, and the annual 

percentage rate. 

138. Defendants' advertisements, including, but not limited to, those described in 

Paragraphs 52-55, promote closed-end credit, and Defendants are subject to the 

advertising requirements ofTILA and Regulation Z, including Section 1026.24(d) of 

Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § !026.24(d). 

139. Pursuant to Section !08(c) ofTILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1607(c), every violation ofTILA 

and Regulation Z constitutes a violation of the FTC Act. 

Count XVI 

Failure to Disclose Annual Percentage Rate in Advertisements 

140. In numerous instances, in connection with tbe advertisement of closed-end credit, 

Defendants' advertisements have stated tbe amount or percentage of the downpayment, 

the amount of a payment, or tbe number of payments or period of repayment, but have 

failed to state tbe annual percentage rate. 

141. Defendants have thereby violated Section J 44 ofTILA, 1~ U.S.C. § 1664, and 

Section 1026.24(d) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 1026.24(d). 

44 
VIOLATIONS OF THE ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFER ACT AND REGULATION E 

142. Section 907(a) ofEFTA, 15 U.S.C. § J693(a), provides that a "preauthorized 

electronic fund transfer from a. consumer's account may be authorized by the consumer 

only in writing, and a copy of such authorization shall be provided to the consumer when 

made." Section 903(J0)ofEFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 1693a(10),provides thatthetenn 

"preauthorized electronic fund transfer" means "an electronic fund transfer authorized in 

advance to recur at substantially regular intervals." 

143. Section 1005.I0(b) of Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. § 1005. J 0(b), provides that 

"[pJreauthorized electronic fund transfers from a consumer's account may be authorized 

only by a writing signed or similarly authenticated by the consumer. The person that 

obtains the authorization shall provide a copy to the consumer.•• 

144. Section I 005.1 0(b) of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection's Official 

Staff Commentary to Regulation E ("Official Staff Commentary to Regulation E"), 12 

C.F.R. § 1005.1 0(b), Supp. I, provides that "[t]he authorization process should evidence 

the consumer's identity and assent to the authorization." 12 C.F.R. § 1005.J0(b), Supp. 

I, cmt. 5. The Official Staff Commentary to Regulation E further provides that "[ a Jn 

authorization is valid if it is readily identifiable as such and the tem1s of the preauthorized 

transfer are clear and readily understandable." 12 C.F.R. § 1005.l0(b), Supp. I, cmt. 6. 

145. Pursuant to Section 9!8(c) ofEFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 1693o(c), every violation of 

EFT A and Regulation E constitutes a violation of the FTC Act. 

45 
Count XVII 

Failure to Obtain Authorization and Provide Copies of such Authorization for Recurring 

Bank Debits 

I 46. In numerous instances, Defendants debit consumers' bank accounts on a recurring 

basis without (a) obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated from 

consumers for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from their accounts; and (b) 

providing consumers a copy of a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated 

from consumers for preautborized electronic fund transfers from their accounts. 

147. Defendants have thereby violated Section 907(a) of EFTA, 15 U.S.C. § l 693e(a), 

and Section 1005.lO(b) of Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. §1005.J0(b). 

CONSUMER INJURY 

I 48. Consumers are suffering, have suffered, and will continue to suffer substantial 

injury as a result of Defendants' violations of the FTC Act, CROA, the TSR, the CRF A, 

TILA and Regulation Z, and EFTA and Regulation E. 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 hann the public interest. 

THIS COURT'S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF 

149. As of the filing of this Complaint and based on the allegations set forth in this 

Complaint, the FTC has reason to believe that Defendants are violating or are about to 

violate the FTC Act, CROA, theTSR, the CRFA, TILA and Regulation Z, and EFTA and 

Regulation E. 

46 
150. 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 ex.ercise of its 

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

contracts, restitution, the refund ofinonies paid, and thedisgorgement of ill-gotten, 

monies, to prevent and remedy any violation of any provision oflaw enforced by the 

FTC. 

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

§ 1679h(b), Section 6(b) of the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6105(b), Section J08(c) 

ofTILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1607(c), and Section 918(c) ofEFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 1693o(c), 

authorize this Court to grant such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to 

consumers resulting from Defendants' violations ofCROA, the TSR, the CRFA, TILA, 

and EFT A, including the rescission or reformation of contracts, and the refund of any 

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, Section 410(b) ofCROA, 15 U.S.C. § 1679h(b), Section 6(b) of the 

Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6105(b), Section 108(c) ofTILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1607(c), Section 

918(c) of EFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 1693o(c), and the Court's own equitable powers, requests that the 

Court: 

A. A ward 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 

47 
the possibility of effective final relief, including but not limited to temporary and 

preliminary injunctions, an order freezing assets, immediate access, an accounting of 

assets; 

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

TSR, the CRFA, TILA and Regulation Z, and EFTA and Regulation Eby Defendants; 

C. A ward such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting 

from Defendants' violations of the ITC Act, CROA, the TSR, the CRF A, TILA and 

Regulation Z, and EFT A and Regulation E, including but not limited to, rescission or 

refonnation of contracts, restitution, the refund 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. 

48 
Dated: June 17, 2019 Respectfully submitted, 

ALDEN F. ABBOTT 0"'1=,el 

., a. 

GREGORY . S (Bar No. PHV09777) 

lOANA R. u,:;,rs..cC (Bar No. PHV10094) 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: 202-326-3719 (Ashe) 

Telephone: 202-326-2077 (Gorecki) 

Facsimile: 202-326-3768 

Email: gashe@ftc.gov, igoreck:i@ftc.gov 

JOHN HUGHES (CT 05289) 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Chief of Civil Di vision 

157 Church Street 

New Haven, CT 06510 

Telephone: 203-821-3700 

Facsimile: 203-773-5373 

Email: jolin.hu!!hes@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

49