Consumer complaint received 2025-12-31 00:00:00
Product: Debt or credit management — Debt settlement
Issue: Unauthorized withdrawals or charges — 
Company: DEBT 0, INC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Formal Consumer Complaint Deuda Cero / Debt 0 Inc  and XXXX XXXX XXXX My name is XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, and I am writing to formally report deceptive and unlawful practices committed by Debt 0 Inc ( also known as Deuda Cero ) and its affiliate XXXX XXXX XXXX. Their actions included misrepresentation, false legal advice, unauthorized withdrawals, and violations of both federal and Florida consumer-protection laws. 
I enrolled in Deuda Ceros debt-relief program in XX/XX/XXXX to manage several credit card accounts. Beginning in XX/XX/XXXX, I made monthly payments of {$470.00} for 13 consecutive months, totaling {$6100.00}. Payments were processed through the XXXX platform, which the company used to manage client escrow funds. 
During those 13 months, Deuda Cero only negotiated three accounts XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX ending in XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX and XXXX XXXX in XXXX ). For my XXXX XXXX  account ending in XXXX, they requested that I increase my monthly payment, which I declined because I had just started a new job and could not afford more, and proposed to wait until XX/XX/XXXX for a reevaluation of my performance and a possible salary increase. Neither of my two XXXX accounts were ever negotiated, and two of my three XXXX accounts also remained unsettled. By collecting and retaining service fees from the very first month before achieving any settlement, Deuda Cero violated the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule ( 16 C.F.R. 310.4 ( a ) ( 5 ) ), which states : Requesting or receiving payment of any fee or consideration for any debt-relief service until and unless : ( i ) the seller or telemarketer has renegotiated, settled, reduced, or otherwise changed the terms of at least one debt pursuant to the promised debt-relief service. This rule explicitly prohibits debt-relief companies from charging or receiving payment until a successful resolution with a creditor has been obtained. 
In their official response to the CFPB, Deuda Cero falsely stated that : It is critical to note that the decision to stop paying creditors was made solely by XXXX XXXXXXXX Deuda Cero and its IAPDA-certified counselors do not advise clients to cease payments to creditors, as this is a personal financial decision. This is demonstrably untrue. On XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXXXXXX XXXX, I received an email from XXXX XXXX, a representative of Deuda Cero, explicitly instructing me to stop making payments on my credit cards while they handled the negotiations. The message stated XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Starting today you must stop using and paying your credit cards ; if you have automatic payments scheduled, you must cancel them You will receive calls from creditors, which is normal, do not answer them so as not to interfere with the negotiation. ) ( Note : For reference, a screenshot of the original email is included at the end of this document, image # XXXX. ) This statement to the CFPB is not only false but also misleading in its intent. Debt-relief companies like Deuda Cero routinely instruct clients to stop making payments to creditors as part of their settlement strategycreating the appearance of financial hardship to push for reduced balances. For Deuda Cero to deny advising this practice contradicts both my written proof and the very foundation of their own business model. Their representation to the CFPB was therefore deceptive and made to mislead regulators into believing they acted in compliance with the Telemarketing Sales Rule, when in fact they relied on this exact method to operate their program. 
This written instruction directly contradicts their claim to the CFPB that ceasing payments was my personal decision and clearly shows that I acted according to their programs guidance. 
Worse, Deuda Cero gave me false legal advice by instructing me not to attend court hearings for the XXXX accounts, stating that : You should not appear [ in court ] so that the administration does not remove the account from the program ; you must wait until an agreement is reached between both parties. ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ). ( Note : for reference, a screenshot of the original email is included at the end of this document, image # XXXX ) Following that advice directly led to XXXX XXXX  obtaining a Default Final Judgment against me in Case No. XXXX, and I recently discovered two additional lawsuits : XXXX XXXX. XXXX and XXXX, that were also filed while I was enrolled in the program. These cases proceeded without any defense or response filed on my behalf, despite Deuda Ceros assurances that negotiations were ongoing. As a direct result of their false legal advice and failure to act, I am now exposed to potential wage and bank account garnishment, additional court costs, and long-term credit damage. By providing legal instructions and advising me on court attendance without being licensed attorneys, Deuda Cero and its staff engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and misrepresentation, in violation of Fla. Stat. 454.23, which states : Any person not licensed or otherwise authorized to practice law in this state who practices law or holds himself or herself out to the public as qualified to practice law, or who willfully pretends to be, or willfully takes or uses any name, title, addition, or description implying that he or she is qualified, or recognized by law as qualified, to practice law in this state, commits a felony of the third degree This law forbids any person or entity from providing legal advice or representing themselves as authorized to practice law without a valid license. This unlawful conduct directly caused judicial harm through the resulting default judgments and exposed me to further financial and legal risk. 
After the judgment, the company went completely silent. For more than ten days, none of my emails were answered. When I called, I was told : XXXX XXXX will not pick up the phone until she has a final answer for the case, but dont worry, its being handled. I can verify this conversation occurred, as it took place through the companys main business phone line, and I have documentation confirming the interaction. 
Later, I was contacted by XXXX XXXX XXXX, who informed me that because several accounts had not been settled, I would need to increase my monthly payments by {$940.00} for 12 months ( a total of {$1400.00} ) to cover the XXXX accounts. This new payment plan would have required me to pay 100 % of the account balances, since the company had failed to negotiate any reductions. 
It is also important to note that Deuda Ceros proposed amount was significantly higher than what XXXX had actually agreed on, the official monthly payment plan for both XXXX accounts totaled approximately {$750.00} ( {$360.00} and {$390.00} respectively ). Despite this, Deuda Cero was asking me to pay {$940.00} per month through them, even though they had not negotiated those accounts and the payment arrangements had already been set directly by XXXX after the default judgment. 
On XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, XXXX, I sent multiple written requests asking Deuda Cero to immediately stop all withdrawals and to provide their written refund policy for review. At no point did I request to cancel the program my intention was solely to pause payments until I could examine and understand their refund terms. Despite these written requests, the company never provided the refund policy nor gave any explanation regarding the handling of my remaining funds. 
Furthermore, on XX/XX/XXXX, Deuda Cero unlawfully withdrew {$1200.00} from my escrow account after receiving written instructions to stop all payments, transferring the funds into their own accounts without my knowledge or consent. ( Note : Please refer to image 3 for the screenshot of the Forth account transactions ) This unauthorized withdrawal constitutes a clear violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 ), which states : A preauthorized electronic fund transfer from a consumers account may be authorized by the consumer only in writing A consumer may stop payment of a preauthorized electronic fund transfer by notifying the financial institution This law protects consumers against unapproved electronic debits and requires express consent for any transfer of funds. 
According to their own contract, any remaining funds after termination or cancellation must be returned to the client, yet I received no refund or explanation. 
Of the total {$6100.00} I paid : {$3600.00} ( 59.6 % ) went to Deuda Cero and XXXX XXXX XXXX as service fees. 
{$1200.00} ( 19.6 % ) were unauthorized withdrawals made after I requested they stop payments. 
{$250.00} ( 4.2 % ) went to custodial and maintenance fees for the XXXX platform. 
Only {$1000.00} ( 16.5 % ) were actually paid to creditors. 
In total, Deuda Cero and XXXX XXXX XXXX retained or withdrew approximately {$4900.00} ( 79 % ) of all the funds I paid. Yet, in their response to my CFPB complaint, they falsely claimed that the program was out of funds and that all deposits had been properly allocated. This statement is demonstrably false. Their own transaction records and my attached breakdown clearly show that nearly 80 % of my payments were taken in fees or unauthorized withdrawals. It is therefore impossible for the program to be out of funds when the vast majority of the money I contributed was diverted to the companys own accounts rather than used for creditor settlements. 
After discovering the unauthorized activity, I contacted XXXX XXXX  XXXX, which opened a Regulation E investigation. The bank flagged the last three withdrawals as fraudulent and issued provisional credits totaling {$1400.00} ( the equivalent of three monthly payments ). The XXXX statements now show unauthorized and reversed entries and temporary negative balances as a result of the chargebacks until investigation is concluded. 
Furthermore, Deuda Ceros response to the CFPB falsely stated that my case was being actively negotiated, even though by that time two XXXX accounts had already defaulted and a final judgment had been entered by the court. This representation to a federal regulator was materially false and intended to conceal their inaction. Beyond that, Deuda Ceros overall conduct showed a complete disregard for its contractual and fiduciary duties : they continued collecting and redistributing funds after my written request to pause payments, ignored multiple emails seeking their refund policy, and failed to disclose how my remaining funds were handled. This pattern of nonresponse and concealment, followed by unauthorized transfers, reflects intentional misconduct rather than administrative error. These false statements, along with the companys failure to act in good faith, constitute a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( Fla. Stat. 501.204 ), which states : Unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful. prohibits deceptive, misleading, or unconscionable acts in the conduct of trade or commerce. Their misrepresentations to both me and the CFPB were intended to conceal negligence and mislead consumers about the effectiveness of their services. 
I respectfully request that the appropriate regulatory authorities conduct a full investigation into the actions of Deuda Cero / Debt 0 Inc and XXXX XXXX XXXX, and order : Full restitution of all funds collected and withdrawn ( {$4900.00} ). 
Accountability for the companys false legal advice, unauthorized withdrawals, and breach of contractual obligations. 
Corrective and enforcement measures to ensure compliance with consumer-protection laws and to prevent future harm to other consumers. 
I joined this program in good faith seeking debt relief, but instead, Deuda Ceros negligence, deception, and unauthorized actions left me facing court judgments, financial loss, and emotional distress. Their behavior was not just unethical ; it was illegal, and I am asking for this matter to be formally reviewed and addressed. 
I believe this case illustrates a systemic pattern of misconduct affecting other consumers enrolled in Deuda Ceros debt-relief program. Their deceptive instructions, failure to communicate, and mishandling of client escrow accounts warrant not only restitution but also a broader regulatory review of their operating practices. 
I am fully willing to cooperate with any investigation and to provide all supporting documentation upon request. I have preserved all relevant records, including email correspondence, call logs, escrow statements, payment confirmations, and other communications that substantiate every fact described in this complaint. My contact information is listed below for any follow-up or request for evidence. 

Respectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation