The FTC obtained an injunction against Turbo Solutions Inc. and Alex V. Miller for operating a deceptive credit repair scheme that filed fake identity theft reports without consumers' consent. The scheme charged illegal advance fees and made false promises about removing negative credit items. The court order halts the operation and seeks consumer redress.
The court issued an injunction halting the operations of Turbo Solutions Inc. and Alex V. Miller. The complaint seeks civil penalties and consumer redress.
In-house legal teams should review customer agreements for credit repair services, focusing on clauses governing fee structures to prohibit illegal advance fees, service representations to eliminate false promises about credit removal, consent mechanisms for filing identity theft reports, and compliance warranties ensuring adherence to the Credit Repair Organizations Act and Telemarketing Sales Rule. Changes may include adding explicit terms on fee timing (e.g., prohibiting upfront payments), mandatory consumer consent for report filings, performance metrics or guarantees for credit improvement, and audit provisions to monitor compliance and prevent deceptive practices.
Entity
Turbo Solutions Inc.
Also known as: Turbo Solutions
Industry
Financial ServicesOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/03/ftc-halts-deceptive-credit-repair-operation-filed-fake-identity-theft-complaints
Injunction Alex Miller Turbo Solutions 03.18.2022
/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Injunction%20Alex%20Miller%20Turbo%20Solutions%2003.18.2022.pdf
AlexMillerComplaint
/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/AlexMillerComplaint.pdf
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Turbo Solutions Inc."
"Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA)"
"Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR)"
"filed false identity theft reports—usually without customers’ knowledge"
$930K
The FTC finalized orders requiring CMG Media Corporation (doing business as Cox Media Group), MindSift LLC, and 1010 Digital Works LLC to pay a total of $930,000 for falsely claiming they offered an AI-powered service that could target ads based on conversations captured from consumers' smart devices, and that consumers had opted into such targeting. The orders also prohibit the companies from making misrepresentations about their advertising services, voice data collection, and consumer consent.
The FTC announced it is seeking public comment on a proposed enforcement policy statement regarding personalized pricing, which is the use of personal data to set prices based on what a company believes an individual consumer is willing to spend. The statement warns that undisclosed collection or use of personal data for personalized pricing could violate the FTC Act's prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices. The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize the Federal Register notice.
$4.0M
The FTC and Connecticut secured a $4 million settlement with Chase Nissan LLC (doing business as Manchester City Nissan) over allegations the dealership charged consumers unauthorized fees, including double-charging for 'certified pre-owned' vehicles and inserting charges like total loss protection into financing agreements without consent. The settlement requires $4 million in consumer redress, prohibits misrepresentations about vehicle certification and warranties, mandates prominent disclosure of the maximum total vehicle price, and requires express informed consent for all charges.
The FTC filed a complaint against Credit Glory LLC and related entities for deceptive credit repair practices, including false promises, impersonating debt collectors, charging illegal upfront fees, and using negative option billing without consent. A federal court temporarily halted the operation.
The FTC issued a policy statement abandoning disparate-impact liability, stating it will no longer bring claims based on this theory. It also modified compliance obligations for several companies based on past decisions.
The FTC, along with Utah and California, filed a complaint against Hims & Hers alleging the telehealth provider shared consumers' sensitive health information with third-party advertising platforms without consent, and deceived consumers about billing and cancellation practices. The complaint alleges violations of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act.