1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

f llt.u 

KA THERINE M. AIZPt,!RV (pro i:ac vice application pending) kaizJ)uru~ftc6

ov 

~~~~~nJic.~!SON (pro hac vice application pe~filjf i~R 24 AH fO: l S 

FEDERAt'TRADE COMMISSION 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Stop: CC-10232 

CU-.,ll ,,.S._.,.;, .:,. I COURT 

CE!liH;\L OIST. OF CALIF. 

Washington.., D.C. 20580 IIY:__ • SANTA ANA 

(202) 326-2ll70 ·----

(Additional counsel on signature block] 

Attorneysfor Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

BCO CONSULTING SERVICES INC., a 

California corporation, also d/b/a Students 

Loan Services LLC; 

SLA CONSULTING SERVICES INC., a 

California coq~oration, f/k/a Student Loan 

Advocates LLC; 

GIANNI OLILANG, individually and as 

an officer ofBCO CONSUL TING 

SERVICES INC. and SLA 

CONSULT{NG SERVICES INC.; 

BRANDON CLORES..,)ndividually and as 

an officer ofBCO CONSUL TING 

SERVICES, INC.; 

KJSHAN BHAKTA, individuaHy and as 

an officer ofBCO CONSULTING 

SERVICES, TNC.; and 

ALLAN RADAM, individually and as an 

officer ofSLA CONSULTING 

SERVICES INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No.6:-z?rOJ -(flJ/{q -Cfl 

COMPLAINT FOR 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION, 

MONETARY RELIEF,AND 

OTHER RELIEF 

{J},!Y.;'J.') 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

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, the 

Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (“Telemarketing 

Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108, and Section 522(a) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley 

Act (“GLB Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 6822(a), which authorize the FTC to seek, and the 

Court to order, temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, monetary 

relief, and other relief, including an asset freeze, appointment of a receiver, and 

immediate access to Defendants’ business premises, for Defendants’ acts or 

practices in violation of (1) Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), (2) the 

FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), 16 C.F.R. Part 310, and (3) Section 521 

of the GLB Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6821. Defendants’ violations are in connection with 

their deceptive marketing and sale of student loan debt relief services. 

SUMMARY OF CASE 

2. Defendants lure consumers, many of whom are low-income borrowers 

saddled with tens of thousands of dollars of student debt, into paying hundreds of 

dollars in exchange for false promises of loan forgiveness. 

3. Defendants falsely tell borrowers that Defendants are affiliated with 

the federal government (or, specifically, the Department of Education); are 

administering government programs; and will purchase borrowers’ debt from 

federal loan servicers in order to secure debt relief on their behalf. Defendants then 

collect hundreds of dollars in illegal up-front payments. 

4. But Defendants’ promises are false. Defendants do not seek or deliver 

loan forgiveness, loan repayment plans, or even a reduced loan balance. 

Consumers have paid significant sums to Defendants only to find that Defendants 

have not applied their payments to consumers’ loan balances, sought or obtained 

forgiveness of their loans, or taken over servicing their loans. When consumers 

-2-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

realize they were duped and ask for a refund, Defendants often refuse to make 

them whole. 

5. Through this action, the FTC seeks to put an end to Defendants’ 

scheme and secure redress for the consumers whom Defendants have harmed. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1331, 1337(a), and 1345. 

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

(c)(1), (c)(2), and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 

PLAINTIFF 

8. The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government 

created by the FTC Act, which authorizes the FTC to commence this district court 

civil action by its own attorneys. 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 prohibits deceptive and abusive 

telemarketing acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The FTC also enforces 

the GLB Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6821-27, which prohibits any person from obtaining or 

attempting to obtain customer information of a financial institution relating to 

another person by making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or 

representation to a customer of a financial institution. 

DEFENDANTS 

9. Defendant BCO Consulting Services, Inc. (“BCO”), also d/b/a 

Students Loan Services LLC, is a California corporation that has a principal 

office listed at 151 N. Kramer Boulevard, Suite 100, Placentia, CA 92780. BCO 

has also used 151 N. Kramer Boulevard, Suite 100, Placentia, CA 92780 as its 

-3-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

business address in communications with customers. BCO transacts or has 

transacted business in this District and throughout the United States. At all times 

relevant to the Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, or as part of the 

common enterprise described in Paragraph 15, BCO has advertised, marketed, 

offered to provide, sold, or provided student loan debt relief services to consumers 

throughout the United States. 

10. Defendant SLA Consulting Services Inc. (“SLA”) f/k/a Student 

Loan Advocates LLC is a California corporation that has a principal office listed 

at 1665 E. 4th Street, Suite 208, Santa Ana, CA 92701. SLA has also used 1665 E. 

4th Street, Suite 208, Santa Ana, CA 92701 as its business address in 

communications with customers. Student Loan Advocates LLC was incorporated 

in California and, in May 2021, converted to SLA. SLA transacts or has transacted 

business in this District and throughout the United States. At all times relevant to 

the Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, or as part of the common 

enterprise described in Paragraph 15, SLA has advertised, marketed, offered to 

provide, sold, or provided student loan debt relief services to consumers 

throughout the United States. 

11. Defendant Gianni Olilang is an owner and officer of both BCO and 

SLA. He has been a signatory on the business bank accounts maintained by BCO 

and SLA, served as the customer contact for SLA’s broadband agreement, and 

signed up for the websites studentloanadvocates.org and slaconsultingservices.org. 

At all times relevant 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, including the acts and practices of 

the common enterprise described in Paragraph 15. Defendant Olilang is a former 

owner and bank signatory for SL Finance LLC, a student loan debt relief company 

named as a defendant in the concurrently filed Federal Trade Commission v. SL 

-4-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Finance LLC, et al. Defendant Olilang 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. 

12. Defendant Brandon Clores is an owner and officer of BCO. He has 

been a signatory on the business bank account maintained by BCO and applied for 

a Paycheck Protection Program loan on behalf of BCO. At all times relevant 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, including the acts and practices of the common enterprise 

described in Paragraph 15. Defendant Clores 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. 

13. Defendant Kishan Bhakta is an owner and officer of BCO. He has 

been a signatory on the business bank account maintained by BCO and served as 

the customer contact for BCO’s broadband agreement. At all times relevant 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, including the acts and practices of the common enterprise 

described in Paragraph 15. Defendant Bhakta 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. 

14. Defendant Allam Radam is an owner and officer of SLA. He has 

been a signatory on the business bank account maintained by SLA and served as 

the customer contact for SLA’s payroll services and utilities. At all times relevant 

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, including the acts and practices of the 

-5-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

common enterprise described in Paragraph 15. Defendant Radam 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 

15. Defendants BCO and SLA (collectively, “Corporate Defendants”) 

have operated as a common enterprise while engaging in the deceptive acts and 

practices and other violations of law alleged below. Corporate Defendants have 

conducted the business practices described below through interrelated companies 

that have common ownership and officers, and that commingled consumer funds. 

Because these Corporate Defendants have operated as a common enterprise, each 

of them is liable for the acts and practices alleged below. 

COMMERCE 

16. At all times relevant 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. 

BACKGROUND ON STUDENT LOAN 

FORGIVENESS AND REPAYMENT PROGRAMS 

17. Student loan debt is the second largest class of consumer debt, with 

over 45 million borrowers owing approximately $1.75 trillion. Student loan debt is 

also one of the most distressed classes of debt: approximately $110.5 billion of 

student loans are in default. 

18. The federal government administers several student loan forgiveness 

and discharge programs. These include income-driven repayment (“IDR”) 

programs, which allow eligible borrowers to limit their monthly payments based 

on a percentage of their discretionary monthly income and offer forgiveness after a 

borrower has made payments for 20 or 25 years; and public service loan 

forgiveness (“PSLF”), which provides loan forgiveness to borrowers who make 

-6-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

payments for ten years while employed at qualifying government or nonprofit 

organizations. ED also administers other loan forgiveness programs for qualifying 

borrowers, including those who can establish a permanent and total disability; 

borrowers whose school closed while they were enrolled; and borrowers whose 

school violated certain state or federal laws, among others. 

19. Consumers can apply for these and other programs through ED or 

their student loan servicers at no cost. These programs do not require the assistance 

of a third-party company or payment of application fees. 

20. In addition to federal loan repayment and forgiveness programs, the 

original coronavirus relief bill, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 

Security Act (“CARES Act”), signed into law on March 27, 2020, temporarily 

paused payments and involuntary collections on federally held student loans 

through September 30, 2020. President Trump extended the pause until December 

31, 2020, and President Biden has extended the pause into 2023. During the pause, 

payments are not due, collection activities (like wage garnishment and reduction of 

tax refunds) have been prohibited, and interest does not accrue on loan balances. 

21. Months during the pause count toward the 120 payments required by 

PSLF (if the borrower works for a qualifying employer during the suspension plan) 

and also toward payments required to receive forgiveness under IDR plans. 

22. In 2022, in addition to the above ongoing programs and COVID-19 

payment pause, President Biden and ED created a one-time debt relief program for 

borrowers of federal student loans. 

23. Several individuals and organizations filed legal challenges to the 

one-time debt relief program. As of this filing, the program is subject to injunctions 

blocking its implementation. 

24. The student loan repayment pause is extended until ED is permitted to 

implement the program or until the litigation is resolved. If the program has not 

-7-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

been implemented and the litigation is not resolved by June 30, 2023, then 

payments will resume 60 days after that date. 

DEFENDANTS’ STUDENT LOAN DEBT RELIEF SCAM 

25. Defendants own and operate a student loan debt relief scam that preys 

on consumers burdened with student loan debt. Since at least August 2019, 

Defendants have collected hundreds of dollars per consumer from thousands of 

consumers—for a total of at least $6.5 million. 

26. Defendants’ scheme relies heavily on false and misleading 

representations made by Defendants’ telemarketers to consumers, often made 

during an initial call between the telemarketer and a consumer. 

27. In many instances, Defendants use telemarketers to make outbound 

telemarketing calls to consumers to offer their services and convince student loan 

borrowers to sign up with the company. 

28. Defendants’ telemarketers entice consumers to stay on the line with 

them by promising to alleviate the burdens of their student loans. Consumers have 

reported that Defendants’ telemarketers sound official, and lead them to believe 

Defendants will deliver on their promises. 

Defendants’ Misrepresentations to Consumers 

29. To persuade consumers into signing up and paying for Defendants’ 

purported student debt relief services, Defendants, through their telemarketers, 

make at least four types of deceptive claims: 

a) Consumers who pay for Defendants’ program will be enrolled 

in a loan repayment program and have their loan balances forgiven in 

whole or in part; 

b) Most or all of consumers’ monthly payments to Defendants will 

be applied to their loan balances; 

c) Defendants are contracted by, or otherwise affiliated with, ED; 

-8-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

and 

d) Defendants will assume responsibility for the servicing of 

consumers’ student loans. 

30. First, Defendants have represented to numerous consumers that if 

consumers sign up for Defendants’ debt relief program, Defendants will enroll 

them in a loan repayment program and secure forgiveness of their student loans. 

31. Defendants frequently tell consumers that the repayment program will 

include a schedule of three-to-six monthly payments of between $200 and $300, 

sometimes followed by lower monthly payments for a period of months or years. 

All of these payments are to be made to Defendants. 

32. Defendants in many instances tell consumers that their loans will be 

forgiven either directly upon payment of the initial installments, or after several 

months or years of making payments. Often, the quoted repayment program is 

substantially shorter than the ten- or twenty-year programs offered by the federal 

government—sometimes only a few months. 

33. These representations are false. In many instances, Defendants do not 

even apply for—much less obtain—legitimate federal repayment plans, such as 

income-driven repayment plans, or student loan forgiveness on behalf of the 

consumers who pay for Defendants’ services. 

34. Numerous consumers have reported that Defendants did not apply for 

income-driven repayment programs, public service loan forgiveness, or other 

forms of loan forgiveness and repayment plans on their behalf, even though they 

provided information about their income and employment and made payments to 

Defendants. 

35. Second, Defendants often tell consumers the payments will be 

applied to reduce their loan balance. 

36. In fact, Defendants in numerous instances take the money for 

-9-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

themselves and do not make payments to consumers’ student loans on their behalf. 

Many consumers have reported that Defendants did not apply any of their 

payments to their student loans and that their balances did not decrease after 

making payments to Defendants. 

37. Because borrowers of federal student loans have not been required to 

make payments on their student loans since March 2020, federal student loan 

servicers are not expecting to receive monthly payments and are not likely to 

contact consumers if payments are not received. Defendants have taken advantage 

of the lull in borrower-servicer communications to deceive borrowers into paying 

them instead of making payments on their student loans or saving that money for 

other purposes. 

38. Third, Defendants frequently tell consumers that they “work” or are 

“affiliated” with the federal government or, specifically, ED. 

39. But Defendants are not affiliated with ED and do not hold contracts 

with ED. 

40. Fourth, Defendants have represented to numerous consumers that 

they will be purchasing, taking over, or handling servicing of consumers’ loans. 

41. Defendants are not federal loan servicers and despite their 

representations to consumers, have not taken over or purchased consumers’ student 

loans. Instead Defendants insert themselves between borrowers and their servicers, 

and have instructed consumers to ignore their current servicers while participating 

in Defendants’ program. 

Defendants’ Use of False, Fictitious, and Fraudulent Statements to Obtain 

Consumers’ Customer Information of a Financial Institution 

42. Defendants use the statements set forth in Paragraph 29 to deceive 

consumers into signing up for Defendants’ services and handing over their 

sensitive and personal financial information. 

-10-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

43. Defendants have used the statements listed in Paragraph 29 to cause 

consumers to provide Defendants with their bank account numbers, debit card 

numbers, and credit card numbers. 

Defendants’ Collection of Illegal Advance Fees 

44. Once in possession of consumers’ private and sensitive financial 

information, Defendants typically collect or attempt to collect approximately threeto-six “initial” monthly payments of between approximately $200 to $300, 

sometimes followed by monthly payments in a lower amount. 

45. Defendants have collected or attempted to collect hundreds of dollars 

for their “services” per consumer. Defendants mislead consumers into believing 

the majority of these payments are going towards paying off their student loan debt 

or otherwise securing loan forgiveness. 

46. In fact, Defendants are in numerous instances simply taking the 

money without delivering promised services. Many consumers have reported that 

Defendants have not sought or obtained repayment plans or student loan 

forgiveness for consumers who pay for Defendants’ services. Thus, in many 

instances, Defendants continued to receive fees from consumers despite never 

renegotiating, settling, reducing, or otherwise altering the terms of the consumers’ 

debt. 

47. During the federal COVID-19 student loan repayment pause, 

consumers have not been required to make payments on their federal loans at all. 

Consumers have paid more to Defendants during the pause than they would have 

been required to pay toward their student loan balances. 

48. In many instances, Defendants have refused or ignored requests by 

consumers for refunds. 

Ongoing Conduct 

49. Based on the facts and violations of law alleged in this Complaint, the 

-11-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

FTC has reason to believe that Defendants are violating or are about to violate laws 

enforced by the Commission. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 

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

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” 

51. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute 

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

Count I 

Deceptive Representations 

52. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, 

promotion, offering for sale, or sale of student loan debt relief services, Defendants 

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

a) Consumers who pay for Defendants’ program will be enrolled 

in a loan repayment program and will have their loan balances 

forgiven in whole or in part; 

b) Most or all of consumers’ monthly payments to Defendants will 

be applied to their loan balances; 

c) Defendants are affiliated with or contracted by the federal 

government or, specifically, ED; and 

d) Defendants will assume responsibility for the servicing of 

consumers’ student loans. 

53. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances in which Defendants have 

made the representations set forth in Paragraph 52, such representations were false 

or unsubstantiated at the time Defendants made them. 

54. Therefore, Defendants’ representations as set forth in Paragraph 52 

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

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

-12-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 

55. In 1994, 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, extensively amended it in 2003, and amended certain sections thereafter. 

56. 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). 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 a 

customer in exchange for consideration. 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(dd). A “telemarketer” 

means 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). 

“Telemarketing” means 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). 

57. Defendants are sellers or telemarketers of “debt relief services” as 

defined by the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(o). Under the TSR, a “debt relief service” 

means 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(o). 

58. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from requesting or 

receiving payment of any fees or consideration for any debt relief service unless 

and until: 

a) The seller or telemarketer has renegotiated, settled, reduced, or 

-13-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

otherwise altered the terms of at least one debt pursuant to a 

settlement agreement, debt management plan, or other such valid 

contractual agreement executed by the customer; and 

b) The customer has made at least one payment pursuant to that 

settlement agreement, debt management plan, or other valid 

contractual agreement between the customer and creditor; and 

c) To the extent that debts enrolled in a service are renegotiated, 

settled, reduced, or otherwise altered individually, the fee or 

consideration either: 

(1) Bears the same proportional relationship to the total fee for 

renegotiating, settling, reducing, or altering the terms of the 

entire debt balance as the individual debt amount bears to the 

entire debt amount. The individual debt amount and entire debt 

amount are those owed at the time the debt was enrolled in the 

service; or 

(2) Is a percentage of the amount saved as a result of the 

renegotiation, settlement, reduction, or alteration. The 

percentage charged cannot change from one individual debt to 

another. The amount saved is the difference between the 

amount owed at the time the debt was enrolled in the service 

and the amount actually paid to satisfy the debt. 16 C.F.R. § 

310.4(a)(5)(i). 

59. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from misrepresenting 

directly or by implication any material aspect of any debt relief service, including, 

but not limited to, the amount of money or the percentage of the debt amount that a 

customer may save by using the service. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(x). 

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

-14-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

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). 

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 

Count II 

Advance Fee for Debt Relief Services 

60. In numerous instances, Defendants have, in connection with the 

telemarketing of student loan debt relief services, requested or received payment of 

a fee or consideration for debt relief services before: 

a) Defendants have renegotiated, settled, reduced, or otherwise 

altered the terms of at least one debt pursuant to a settlement 

agreement, debt management plan, or other such valid contractual 

agreement executed by the customer; and 

b) The customer has made at least one payment pursuant to that 

settlement agreement, debt management plan, or other valid 

contractual agreement between the customer and the creditor. 

61. Therefore, Defendants’ acts or practices as set forth in Paragraph 60 

violate the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(5)(i). 

Count III 

Material Debt Relief Misrepresentation 

62. In numerous instances, Defendants have, in connection with the 

telemarketing of student loan debt relief services, misrepresented, directly or 

indirectly, expressly or by implication, material aspects of their debt relief services, 

including, but not limited to, that: 

a) Consumers who pay for Defendants’ program will be enrolled 

in a loan repayment program and will have their loan balances 

forgiven in whole or in part; 

b) Most or all of consumers’ monthly payments to Defendants will 

-15-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

be applied to their loan balances; 

c) Defendants are affiliated with or contracted by the federal 

government or, specifically, ED; and 

d) Defendants will assume responsibility for the servicing of 

consumers’ student loans. 

63. Therefore, Defendants’ acts or practices as set forth in Paragraph 62 

violate the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(x). 

THE GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT 

64. Section 521 of the GLB Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6821, became effective on 

November 12, 1999, and remains in full force and effect. Section 521(a)(2) of the 

GLB Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6821(a), prohibits any person from “obtain[ing] or 

attempt[ing] to obtain . . . customer information of a financial institution relating to 

another person . . . by making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or 

representation to a customer of a financial institution.” 

65. The GLB Act defines “customer” to mean “with respect to a financial 

institution, any person (or authorized representative of a person) to whom the 

financial institution provides a product or service, including that of acting as a 

fiduciary.” 15 U.S.C. § 6827(1). The GLB Act defines “customer information of a 

financial institution” as “any information maintained by or for a financial 

institution which is derived from the relationship between the financial institution 

and a customer of a financial institution and is identified with the customer.” 15 

U.S.C. § 6827(2). 

66. Section 522(a) of the GLB Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6822(a), empowers the 

FTC to enforce Section 521 of the GLB Act “in the same manner and with the 

same power and authority as the [FTC] has under the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act [FDCPA] . . . to enforce compliance with such Act.” 

67. Section 814(a) of the FDCPA, in turn, makes a violation of the 

-16-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

FDCPA an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of the FTC Act. 15 

U.S.C. § 1692l(a). Section 814(a) of the FDCPA further provides that all of the 

functions and powers of the FTC under the FTC Act are available to the FTC to 

enforce compliance by any person with the FDCPA, including the power to 

enforce provisions of the FDCPA in the same manner as if the violation had been a 

violation of an FTC trade regulation rule. 

68. Thus, pursuant to Section 522(a) of the GLB Act, the FTC may 

enforce Section 521 of the GLB Act in the same manner as if a violation of the 

GLB Act were a violation of an FTC trade regulation rule. 

69. Section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, authorizes this Court to 

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

resulting from violations of FTC trade regulation rules. Accordingly, Section 19 of 

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, also authorizes this Court to grant such relief as the 

Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting from violations of 

the GLB Act. This relief may include, and is not limited to, recission or 

reformation of contracts, and the refund of money or return of property. 

Count IV 

Use of False, Fictitious, or Fraudulent Statements to Obtain or Attempt to 

Obtain Customers’ Customer Information of a Financial Institution 

70. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, 

promotion, offering for sale, or sale of student loan debt relief services, Defendants 

have made false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations to customers 

of financial institutions to obtain or attempt to obtain those customers’ customer 

information of a financial institution. The customer information of a financial 

institution that Defendants obtain or attempt to obtain includes bank account 

numbers, debit card numbers, and credit card numbers. 

71. Defendants obtain or attempt to obtain the the customer information 

-17-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

of a financial institution by representing to customers of financial institutions, 

directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that consumers who pay for 

Defendants’ program will be enrolled in a loan repayment program and have their 

loan balances forgiven in whole or in part; most or all of their payments will be 

applied to their loan balances; Defendants are affiliated with or contracted by the 

federal government or, specifically, ED; and Defendants will assume responsibility 

for the servicing of consumers’ student loans. 

72. Defendants’ representations set forth in Paragraph 71 above are false, 

fictitious, or fraudulent within the meaning of Section 521 of the GLB Act. 

73. Therefore, Defendants’ acts and practices set forth in Paragraphs 70 to 

72 above violate Section 521 of the GLB Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6821. 

CONSUMER INJURY 

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

substantial injury as a result of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, the TSR, 

and the GLB Act. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendants are likely to 

continue to injure consumers and harm the public interest. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that the Court: 

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

Act, the TSR, and the GLB Act; 

B. Grant 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 temporary and 

preliminary injunctions, an order freezing assets, immediate access to Defendants’ 

premises, and appointment of a receiver; 

C. Award monetary and other relief within the Court’s power to grant, 

including the rescission or reformation of contracts, the refund of money, public 

-18-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

notification, or other relief necessary to redress injury to consumers; and 

D. Award any additional relief as the Court determines to be just and 

proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: April 24, 2023 

/s/ Katherine M. Aizpuru____ 

KATHERINE M. AIZPURU 

(pro hac vice application pending) 

kaizpuru@ftc.gov 

202-876-5673 

SAMUEL JACOBSON 

(pro hac vice application pending) 

sjacobson@ftc.gov 

202-876-5590 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Stop: CC-6316 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

JOHN D. JACOBS, Cal. Bar No. 134154 

Local Counsel 

jjacobs@ftc.gov 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

10990 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400 

Los Angeles, CA 90024 

(310) 824-4343 

(310) 824-4380 (fax) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

-19-