FTC Settles with ARM Firm for $800,000 Over Convenience Fees

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

The Federal Trade Commission announced Tuesday that it has reached a settlement agreement with an ARM firm and an affiliated collection law firm over the convenience fees the company charged to consumers who were making payments over the phone. The company will pay $800,000 in restitution under the settlement.

The FTC alleged in its complaint that the defendants – a debt buyer and a debt collection law firm, both based in Mississippi – violated the FTC Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by charging consumers a fee for payments authorized by telephone.  According to the FTC, the defendants led consumers to believe that the fee was unavoidable when, in fact, those who paid by mail or online did not incur the fee.  The FTC also alleged that the companies violated the laws by falsely threatening to sue consumers as a means of getting them to pay.  A debt collector is prohibited by law from using false, deceptive, or misleading representations or tactics when collecting a debt.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the defendants will pay $799,958 in restitution for consumers.  The defendants also are barred from making any misrepresentations  when collecting a debt, including false claims that consumers must pay an extra fee when making payments on a debt or that they will be sued for not paying a debt.

According to the complaint, debt buyer Security Credit Services, LLC, and Jacob Law Group, PLLC have worked together since 2006 to collect debts nationwide.  Security Credit buys consumer debt accounts, and contracts with Jacob Law to collect on them.  The complaint alleges that Jacob Law called and pressured consumers to immediately make payments on their debts by authorizing electronic checks or credit or debit card payments over the phone.  Jacob Law allegedly told consumers they were required to pay an additional fee of $18.95 for this service, but routinely failed to mention that they could avoid the fee by mailing the payment or paying online.  Since 2008, the defendants have collected at least $799,958 in fees from consumers.

Security Credit Services did not respond to a request for comment from insideARM.

The FTC also alleged that Jacob Law Group implied that it would file lawsuits to collect the debts even when it did not intend to do so.

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

Posted in Collection Law Firms, Collection Laws and Regulations, Debt Buying, Debt Collection, FDCPA, Featured Post, Payment Systems .

×
Subscribe to our email newsletters

Continuing the Discussion

We welcome and encourage readers to comment and engage in substantive exchanges over topics on insideARM.com. Users must always follow our Terms of Use. Also know that your comment will be deleted if you: use profanity, engage in any kind of hate speech, post an incoherent or irrelevant thought, make a point of targeting anyone, or do anything else we find unsavory. Your comment will be posted under your current Display Name, shown below. If you'd like to change your Display Name, you must update it on the My Profile page.

  • avatar Steve Gold says:

    The last sentence in the article does not go far enough in describing the law firm’s stupidity. In many cases, Jacob Law threatened to file a lawsuit not merely when they had no intention of actually doing so, but could not legally sue because they were not licensed in that jurisdiction. Another example of bad lawyers making bad examples of debt collectors which leads to bad cases, bad law and a bad reputation for the industry.

Leave a Reply