The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
ACRO Services
As a result of a Â鶹´«Ã½ Trade Commission lawsuit, the operators of an alleged credit card debt relief scheme based in Tennessee have agreed to court orders that would permanently ban them from telemarketing and selling debt relief products or services.
Sean Austin, John Steven Huffman, John Preston Thompson, and their affiliated companies were charged by the FTC in November 2022 with taking tens of millions of dollars from people by falsely promising to eliminate or substantially reduce their credit card debt. At the time, a federal court agreed to the FTC’s request to temporarily freeze the defendants’ assets and appoint a receiver over the businesses while the case took place.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, entered the final orders on April 28, 2023.
Premerger Notification; Reporting and Waiting Period Requirements; Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period
2308004 Informal Interpretation
2308006 Informal Interpretation
2308002 Informal Interpretation
Agency Information Collection Activities; Prop. Collection; Comment Request; Extension (Business Opportunity Rule)
Top Company Complaints Report - August 2023
2308001 Informal Interpretation
16 CFR Part 465: Trade Regulation Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials (NPRM)
16 CFR Part 255: Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising
Blessings in No Time
The Â鶹´«Ã½ Trade Commission and the state of Arkansas sued the operators of a “blessing loom†investment program, alleging that it has operated as an illegal pyramid scheme that bilked tens of millions of dollars from thousands of consumers, and targeted African Americans and harmed people struggling financially during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In their , the FTC and Arkansas charged that the operators of Blessings in No Time (“BINTâ€) have lured people into joining their program by falsely promising investment returns as high as 800 percent. The complaint alleges that some BINT members paid as much as $62,700 to participate. In reality, though, as in other pyramid schemes, the vast majority of participants have lost money, the complaint alleges.
BINT’s operators are banned from the business of multi-level marketing as a result of enforcement actions taken by the Â鶹´«Ã½ Trade Commission and the State of Arkansas alleging the operation of an illegal pyramid scheme.