Case Data:
- Submitting Date: February 24, 2025
- Courtroom: United States District Courtroom, Central District of California
- Plaintiff: Federal Commerce Fee (FTC)
- Defendants:
- Blackrock Companies, Inc. (d/b/a a number of legal-sounding names)
- Liberty Credit score Administration, Inc.
- Civil Criticism Administration
- Pacific Billing Options, Inc.
- Cornerstone Authorized Group, LLC
- People: Ryan Evans & Mitchell Evans
Allegations at a Look:
The FTC alleges that Blackrock Companies and its associates engaged in misleading and abusive debt assortment practices, together with falsely representing money owed, threatening authorized motion, and impersonating regulation corporations. The scheme allegedly concerned fraudulent claims that buyers owed cash and would face lawsuits, wage garnishments, or credit score rating harm if they didn’t pay.
Key Allegations:
- Despatched deceptive letters to customers demanding cost for money owed that weren’t owed.
- Falsely claimed to be regulation corporations or affiliated with attorneys.
- Threatened customers with lawsuits, wage garnishment, and credit score harm.
- Illegally obtained delicate monetary data from customers.
- Collected over $6.2 million from customers by means of misleading means.
Authorized Claims:
✅ Federal Commerce Fee Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – Unfair & misleading practices
✅ Honest Debt Assortment Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p) – False and deceptive debt assortment practices
✅ Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6821) – Fraudulent entry to shopper monetary knowledge
✅ FTC’s Impersonation Rule (16 C.F.R. Half 461) – False impersonation of companies
Aid Sought:
💰 Everlasting injunction to cease unlawful debt assortment practices
💰 Financial reduction to compensate affected customers
💰 Freezing of belongings & appointment of a receiver
💰 Rescission or reformation of fraudulent contracts
The Backside Line:
The FTC is taking authorized motion to close down Blackrock Companies’ fraudulent debt assortment operation, which allegedly misled customers into paying money owed they didn’t owe. Customers ought to be cautious of sudden authorized threats demanding cost and confirm any such claims earlier than making funds.
⚖️ Authorized Disclaimer: Lawsuits include allegations that haven’t been confirmed in courtroom. Defendants might deny the claims, and the case final result stays undetermined.
FTC Motion Results in Courtroom Order Halting Phantom Debt Assortment Scheme That Took Thousands and thousands from Customers and Threatened Customers’ Credit score, Houses, and Employment
Because of the FTC lawsuit, federal courtroom points short-term restraining order halting scheme that despatched fictitious debt assortment notices to customers nationwide
Because of a Federal Commerce Fee lawsuit, a federal courtroom has briefly halted the operations and frozen the belongings of a phantom debt assortment scheme and its operators. The scheme has operated below quite a few names, together with Blackrock Companies, Blackstone Authorized Group, Capital Authorized Companies, Quest Authorized Group, Viking Authorized Companies, and others.
In accordance with the FTC’s grievance, the operators of this scheme are Ryan and Mitchell Evans and their affiliated firms. Debt collectors working for the scheme’s operators and their affiliated firms have despatched customers misleading warning and assortment letters or known as them immediately, claiming that buyers owed a debt of some variety and threatening authorized motion, wage garnishment, unfavourable impacts to customers’ credit score, and even arrest in the event that they don’t pay. The money owed described in these letters and calls by no means existed, in keeping with the grievance, and the defendants haven’t any foundation to make authorized threats towards customers.
The grievance additional alleges that the defendants have despatched letters and made cellphone calls to customers claiming they owed cash to a payday lender, and that the purported “regulation agency” contacting the patron will imminently be submitting go well with towards the patron if the patron doesn’t pay up. The letters and calls additionally declare that buyers’ credit score can be broken by the fictional debt, and that if customers conform to pay to settle that debt, the hurt to their credit score might be lessened.
All the claims in these letters and calls are false, in keeping with the grievance.
The grievance notes that the letters despatched by the operators usually include a wealth of delicate private details about the patron, together with the final 4 digits of their Social Safety quantity, main customers to imagine the letter could also be respectable.
When customers go to the web sites arrange by the defendants for the bogus debt assortment firms, they’re once more confronted with false warnings that failure to pay these pretend money owed may end in garnishment of the patron’s wages, together with lawsuits and impacts to their credit score. In follow-up calls, the threats improve, with collectors falsely telling customers that they’ve defrauded a monetary establishment, might be arrested at their office, or that their houses might be seized if they don’t settle, in keeping with the grievance.
In accordance with the grievance, the scheme has operated below all kinds of names, together with the names of unaffiliated current companies and regulation corporations, in violation of the FTC’s Rule on Impersonating Authorities and Companies. As well as, the grievance alleges that the defendants have often did not observe quite a few necessities set out by the Honest Debt Assortment Practices Act, together with disclosing that they’re debt collectors when their collectors contact customers.
The FTC’s grievance asks the courtroom to cease the defendants’ illegal conduct and supply redress to customers harmed by the scheme. – Supply
