Meet Ur Planet

Main Menu

  • Home
  • Plane boarding
  • Tourist guide
  • Hotel accommodation
  • Travel booking
  • Vacation rentals

Meet Ur Planet

Header Banner

Meet Ur Planet

  • Home
  • Plane boarding
  • Tourist guide
  • Hotel accommodation
  • Travel booking
  • Vacation rentals
Vacation rentals
Home›Vacation rentals›Payment Processor That Helped Fake Bilk Discount Clubs Consumers to Pay $2.3M in FTC Case

Payment Processor That Helped Fake Bilk Discount Clubs Consumers to Pay $2.3M in FTC Case

By Meg P. Sousa
March 11, 2022
0
0

A payment processor that allegedly helped a bogus discount club system debit tens of millions of dollars from consumers without authorization will have to pay $2.3 million and face a permanent ban from working with high-end customers. risk following a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit.

According to the FTC’s complaint in the case, which was first filed in 2017, iStream Financial Services and its senior executives, Kris Axberg and Richard Joachim, allegedly debited money from consumers seeking loans on salary or cash advances, but were signed up for a bogus coupon service and charged an upfront fee of up to nearly $100 plus up to $19.95 per month. Consumers were enrolled in the discount club program online and through outbound telemarketing.

The complaint alleged that 99.5% of consumers illegally charged for “discount clubs” never accessed any coupons, and that tens of thousands of them called the defendants to try to reverse the charges, while that thousands more disputed the fees directly with their banks.

“The order announced today prohibits iStream from processing high-risk payments and orders it to pay $2.3 million that can be used to reimburse defrauded consumers,” said Samuel Levine, director of the Bureau of FTC Consumer Protection. “Unfortunately, this amount represents a small fraction of the approximately $40 million in total losses suffered by consumers as a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision in AMG. Without a legal solution to restore the FTC’s strongest authority to obtain refunds, these consumers, and millions more like them, cannot be cured.

Payment processors, like iStream, offer merchants the ability to obtain customer payments for products and services through electronic banking. According to the complaint, iStream, in conjunction with merchants, used a type of payment called a remotely created check (RCC) to withdraw money from consumer accounts, causing significant harm to hundreds of thousands of consumers, often those who could least afford to have funds unexpectedly taken from their accounts without authorization.

iStream, which processed all payments for the discount club from November 2010 to April 2016, consistently ignored the high return rates generated by discount club transactions, a red flag indicating illegal debit. According to the FTC’s complaint, iStream also ignored other indications of fraudulent activity, including that the primary merchant client involved in the scheme from 2010 through September 2013 was EDebitPay, LLC, a company that had previously subject of previous enforcement actions by the FTC for engaging in very similar misconduct.

Under the proposed settlement order, defendants will be permanently prohibited from using any form of remotely created payment orders, including RCCs, as well as from processing payments on behalf of any customer whose activity involves outbound telemarketing, discount clubs or offers to help consumers. with payday loans. The order will also prohibit the defendants from providing payment services to any customer that the defendants know or should know violates the FTC Act or the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR).

The order will require the defendants to conduct a thorough screening of all of their existing customers as well as all future customers to ensure that the customers do not violate FTC or TSR law.

The FTC’s case against the other defendants in the case, including the merchants operating the discount club system, is ongoing.

The Commission’s vote approving the stipulated final order was 4-0. The FTC filed the draft order in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

REMARK: The stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the judge of the district court.

Related posts:

  1. Former Google CIO Douglas Merrill Wants To Reform Payday Loans With ZestCash – TechCrunch
  2. Uber launches cash advance program for drivers
  3. 7 benefits for student loan borrowers
  4. Advocates Again Call for Legislation Capping Payday Loan Rates
Tagspayday loansunited states

Categories

  • Hotel accommodation
  • Plane boarding
  • Tourist guide
  • Travel booking
  • Vacation rentals

Recent Posts

  • Ice Poseidon explains his side of the infamous plane crash that led to Twitch’s ban
  • Beware of Claims of Financial Inclusion Amid Cryptocurrency
  • Why the middle seat passenger should have both armrests on the plane
  • Flip-flops and other clothing items that could get you banned from flying
  • Virginia Court Approved $489 Million in Aid for Victims of Illegal Internet Payday Loans

Archives

  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • September 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • April 2015
  • June 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • April 2013
  • September 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2011
  • June 2009
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions