Consumer complaint received 2025-04-24 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I purchased XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX plan, marketed as a professional address suitable for company registration and business operations. At no time during the advertising or purchase process was it disclosed that the address was a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a crucial detail for business legitimacy, compliance, and functionality. 

Only after payment was processed did XXXX disclose via email that the provided address was a PMB. PMBs are not considered valid for many business registrations, are flagged by banks and government agencies, and create reputational and functional harm. 

Despite this omission, XXXX insists the agreement is binding under the E-SIGN Act and UETA, citing my electronic acknowledgment. However, this does not excuse the lack of material disclosure before purchase. An agreement formed under a misleading premise may not be enforceable and raises serious concerns under consumer protection laws. 

XXXX ' Written Response : XXXX confirmed in writing : - That my electronic acceptance was based on their Terms and Conditions. 
- That I was only made aware of the PMB designation post-payment. 

Their response did not refute that PMB status was omitted from all pre-sale marketing. Instead, they cited contract laws, failing to address the deceptive advertising or the fundamental mismatch between advertised and delivered services. 

XXXX further escalated the matter to a debt collection agency for enforcement of charges on a service I did not knowingly or fully agree to. This could constitute unfair collection practices based on a disputed and misrepresented product.

Federal Trade Commission Act ( FTC Act ) At the federal level, the FTC prohibits : Unfair or deceptive practices in commerce ( 15 U.S. Code 45 ).

Not clearly disclosing that a business address is a PMB and marketing it as a " professional business address '' isn't this considered deceptive advertising under this law? 

Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ( DTPA ) The Texas DTPA is one of the strongest consumer protection laws in the country.

Possible Violations : 17.46 ( b ) ( 5 ) : Misrepresenting that services have characteristics, benefits, or qualities that they do not have.

17.46 ( b ) ( 7 ) : Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade when they are not.

17.46 ( b ) ( 24 ) : Failing to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the time of the transaction and was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction they otherwise would not have entered into. 

XXXX advertised a " Business Address '' and only disclosed it was a PMB after purchase ; they misrepresented the nature and quality of the service a direct DTPA violation, correct? 

USPS Commercial Mail Receiving Agency ( CMRA ) Rules Under USPS Domestic Mail Manual 508 : Businesses like XXXX that operate as CMRAs must : Inform customers that their mail address is a PMB, not a suite or true office.

Format addresses to include PMB or # and not misleading suite numbers. 

If XXXX marketed the address as a real office or suite and failed to disclose it as a PMB before purchase, that violates USPS regulations and can be reported.

Texas Uniform Electronic Transactions Act ( UETA ) Statute : Texas Business & Commerce Code 322.001 et seq.

Regus is citing UETA to defend the enforceability of the agreement. However, this act does not protect companies from deceptive practices or failures to disclose material terms.

It simply makes electronic agreements valid.

Misrepresented the nature of the service before you agreed, UETA does not protect that misrepresentation.

Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits : Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. 
XXXX violation - Failing to clearly state the address was a PMB before purchase. 
I made the decision based on the belief that the address was a legitimate office address. 
I would not have purchased the service had this been disclosed up front. 

Texas Business & Commerce Code 322.001 et seq. 
XXXX is citing UETA to defend the enforceability of the agreement. However, this act does not protect companies from deceptive practices or failures to disclose material fact Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) ( If Debt Sent to Collections ) XXXX sent to collections based on a deceptive or unclear agreement, challenging under 15 U.S. Code 1692g ( validation of debt ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation