The FTC site says this is the largest civil penalty ever?
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/01/academy.shtm
The Order instructs them not to break any of the commonly and well-known rules and to stick to the straight and narrow.
Duh? All the order tells them is do what you were supposed to do from the beginning according to Fair Debt stndards.
The settlement order announced today, negotiated by DOJ and the FTC, imposed civil penalties of $375,000 and $300,000, respectively, on Albert S. Bastian and Edward Hurt, who oversaw Academy's Las Vegas collection center. The judgments were suspended upon payment of $7,500 each, based on their ability to pay. The full judgments will become due immediately if the defendants are found to have misrepresented their financial condition.
The order bars Bastian and Hurt from making false, deceptive, or misleading representations in debt collection efforts, such as that nonpayment will result in garnishment of wages, seizure of property, or lawsuits, or that they or their agents are attorneys. They also are prohibited from withdrawing money from consumers' bank accounts without their express informed consent, and from depositing or threatening to deposit postdated checks before the date on the check. In addition, the pair are barred from improperly communicating with third parties about a debt; communicating with a consumer at any unusual time or place; and harassing, oppressing, or abusing any person in connection with debt collection.
They each paid $7,500 which is chump change when compared to the debts/judgments they inflicted on others. The full amount will come due if they lied basically.
For all they did it seems to me they got off with a slap on the wrist. The order merely restates the do's and don'ts of collections that are allowed? Everybody is ordered to do that so imo it looks like this is a farce.
They paid $7,500 according to their ability to pay.
I'd be willing to bet that none of the judgments they got as a result of their bullying, illegal and unethical behavior took into account the debtors "ability to pay".
Am I missing something?
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/01/academy.shtm
The Order instructs them not to break any of the commonly and well-known rules and to stick to the straight and narrow.
Duh? All the order tells them is do what you were supposed to do from the beginning according to Fair Debt stndards.
The settlement order announced today, negotiated by DOJ and the FTC, imposed civil penalties of $375,000 and $300,000, respectively, on Albert S. Bastian and Edward Hurt, who oversaw Academy's Las Vegas collection center. The judgments were suspended upon payment of $7,500 each, based on their ability to pay. The full judgments will become due immediately if the defendants are found to have misrepresented their financial condition.
The order bars Bastian and Hurt from making false, deceptive, or misleading representations in debt collection efforts, such as that nonpayment will result in garnishment of wages, seizure of property, or lawsuits, or that they or their agents are attorneys. They also are prohibited from withdrawing money from consumers' bank accounts without their express informed consent, and from depositing or threatening to deposit postdated checks before the date on the check. In addition, the pair are barred from improperly communicating with third parties about a debt; communicating with a consumer at any unusual time or place; and harassing, oppressing, or abusing any person in connection with debt collection.
They each paid $7,500 which is chump change when compared to the debts/judgments they inflicted on others. The full amount will come due if they lied basically.
For all they did it seems to me they got off with a slap on the wrist. The order merely restates the do's and don'ts of collections that are allowed? Everybody is ordered to do that so imo it looks like this is a farce.
They paid $7,500 according to their ability to pay.
I'd be willing to bet that none of the judgments they got as a result of their bullying, illegal and unethical behavior took into account the debtors "ability to pay".
Am I missing something?
Last edited:
