Sponsored Content WEBINAR: ELECTION 2008: E-mail Tips from a Political Insider   WEBINAR: Becoming the Illusionist: The Magic of Using "Brand" to Drive Response without Results Disappearing in the Process   WEBINAR: Score and Win Through Cooperation   TOOLS OF THE TRADE: Holiday's are prime-time for email marketing - maximize your ROI by getting to the inbox   ON DEMAND WEBINAR--MASTER CLASS: High Performance Online and Off-line Strategies for Large Scale Customer Acquisition   FREE WHITE PAPER - Direct Mail and the Internet Find any supplier you need - agencies, CRM, fulfillment, lists, e-commerce, paper, printers, telemarketing, and more. Featured Categories Lists and Data Telemarketing Database Marketing E-commerce Web Marketing Agency & Creative Services Print, Production & Paper Lists and Data Processing :: view all categories Get free access to more than 50,000 list data cards - one of the most comprehensive databases in the industry. >> Search Now DIRECT Buzz Blog Webinars Buyer's Guide Calculators JobZone ListFinder Promo Calendar Research Store E-Newsletters Print Magazine This Month in Direct Magazine Deal With It Direct had a full house for this year's list roundtable. Considering all the additional responsibilities on brokers' plates, that's impressive... See Full July Issue

Two debt reduction companies and their principals have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges alleging they falsely claimed they could reduce consumers’ credit card interest rates or the amount of their credit card debt.

The defendants are: Debt-Set, William Riggs, Leo Mangan, Resolve Credit Counseling Inc. and Michelle Tucker. The settlement orders contain suspended monetary relief of $1 million. Mangan has paid $40,000. Resolve and Tucker will pay $350,000.

If any defendant is found by the court to have misrepresented the sworn financial statements provided to the Commission, a $1 million judgment will be imposed, less any payments already made, continued the FTC.

Last March, the defendants allegedly sold debt reduction services through Web sites and television and radio advertisements with claims such as “Reduce Debt Now” and “Eliminate Harassing Calls,” according to the FTC.

When consumers called a toll-free number, they were encouraged to enroll in a “debt consolidation program” if their unsecured consumer debt was up to one month overdue, or a “debt settlement program” if overdue longer, according to the FTC.

The FTC further alleged that the defendants violated the FTC Act by falsely promising to obtain lump-sum settlements, such as “50 cents on the dollar” or “50 to 60%” of consumers’ total unsecured debt, or to negotiate with creditors for lower interest rates. The complaint also alleged that they misrepresented that they would not charge consumers any upfront fees before obtaining the promised debt relief, and that participation in their program would stop creditors from calling or suing them to collect debt.

The settlement prohibits the defendants from engaging in the violations alleged in the complaint, and requires them--when making representations about specific debt reductions they can achieve--to disclose truthfully key terms of the program. Those include all fees and costs they charge; when and how consumers must pay them; the approximate time period before settlements will be achieved and the fact that consumers’ balances typically will increase before settlements for all accounts are achieved, according to the FTC.

The case is on file at U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Jan. 31.