1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Permanent Ban Plus $17 Million Monetary Judgment for Debt Relief Scammers, Says FTC

Permanent Ban Plus $17 Million Monetary Judgment for Debt Relief Scammers, Says FTC

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.08.23

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sued three operators, Sean Austin, John Steven Huffman, John Preston Thompson, and their affiliated companies last year for falsely promising to eliminate or substantially reduce credit card debt for consumers.  These companies operated under several names, including ACRO Services, American Consumer Rights Organization, Consumer Protection Resources, Reliance Solutions, Thacker & Associates, and Tri Star Consumer Group.

Since 2019, Austin, Huffman, and Thompson, as alleged by the FTC, have operated a network of companies incorporated in Tennessee, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming that have worked together to support their deceptive credit card debt relief scheme.  The alleged deceptive and unlawful tactics included deceptive telemarketing, false promises of debt relief and deceptive upfront fee charges.  According to the FTC, the schemers made tens of millions of dollars from the upfront enrollment fees.  Even worse, consumers who signed up for the services were told to stop making payments to their credit card companies, but not informed of the severe consequences of such non-payments.

The stipulated final judgments require that the operators be permanently banned from advertising, selling, or assisting in any debt relief product or services, or participating in telemarketing. The orders also contain total monetary relief in the amount of $17,486,080.

Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, commented that “[w]ith credit card delinquencies surging, the FTC will continue to take aggressive action against those who prey on struggling consumers.”

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...