December 31, 2021

FTC bans phantom debt collectors from industry

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Subscribe now to get unlimited access to all OnPractice content. Your subscription is free.
Subscribe Now

On December 13, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that, under the terms of a settlement, a group of phantom debt collectors were permanently banned from the debt collection industry. The term "phantom debt" is generally used to refer to debt that doesn't exist or has already been paid.

In its related complaint, the FTC alleged that the defendants collected on debt that was not owed or that the defendants had no right to collect.  The complaint further alleged (1) the defendants used robocalls to leave deceptive messages claiming consumers faced imminent legal action, and (2) when consumers returned these robocalls, the defendants falsely claimed to be from a mediation or law firm, again threatened legal action, and then used the consumers' personal information to convince them that the threats were real.

Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants were permanently banned from engaging in debt collection of any kind. They were also banned from buying or selling debt, and from making any misrepresentations to consumers about any goods or services.  The settlement also included a monetary judgment of $12,098,760.

The FTC's complaint was taken as part of its ongoing "Operation Corrupt Collector" initiative, a nationwide law enforcement and outreach program launched in conjunction with over 50 federal and state law enforcement partners aimed at protecting consumers from phantom debt collection and abusive and threatening debt collection practices. To date, Operation Corrupt Collector encompasses more than 50 enforcement actions against debt collectors engaged in these illegal practices brought by the FTC and its federal and state partners.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Ballard Spahr

Federal Regulation for Digital Assets Could Be Coming Soon

By Scott L. Diamond Ballard Spahr July 22 , 2022

Significant federal regulation may be coming soon for cryptocurrencies, blockchain, and non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

Closing the Gate: House Adopts ENABLERS Act Amendment to 2023 NDAA

By Peter D. Hardy Ballard Spahr July 21 , 2022

Amendment Focuses on Professional “Gatekeepers” – Lawyers, Accountants, Payment Processors, and Those Providing Corporate Formation and Trust Services

Pennsylvania Cuts Corporate Income Tax Rates, Makes Other Significant Tax Changes

By Wendi L. Kotzen Ballard Spahr July 19 , 2022

Pennsylvania’s budget season just ended and Act 53 of 2022 (Act 53), made many significant changes to the Commonwealth’s business and individual taxes.

More From Creditors’ and Debtors’ Rights

Massachusetts Enacts CROWN Act, Prohibiting Discrimination Against Protective Hairstyles

By Samia M. Kirmani Jackson Lewis P.C. August 04 , 2022

Employers should review their policies, handbooks, and training materials to ensure compliance with the new law.

Bristol-Myers Decision Applies to Plaintiffs in FLSA Collective Actions, Third Circuit Holds

By David R. Golder Jackson Lewis P.C. August 02 , 2022

Joining two other circuits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that Bristol-Myers does apply to FLSA collective actions, and therefore, federal courts may not exercise jurisdiction over claims of out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs in putative collective actions, other than in the states in which the employer has its principal place of business or is incorporated.

Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation Unlawful, Michigan High Court Holds, Overruling Precedent

By Marlo Johnson Roebuck Jackson Lewis P.C. August 01 , 2022

This opinion, with two justices dissenting, comes approximately two years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Featured Stories