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 federal court temporarily halted the credit repair scheme, preventing the defendants from continuing their operations while the case proceeds.
In-house legal teams should review vendor agreements with marketing agencies, telemarketers, payment processors, and any service providers that handle consumer data or billing. Key clauses to examine include those governing upfront fees, negative option billing, consent requirements, compliance with FTC rules (including the Telemarketing Sales Rule and Credit Repair Organizations Act), and data usage. Contracts should include robust representations and warranties regarding compliance with consumer protection laws, indemnification for violations, and audit rights to ensure vendors are not engaging in deceptive practices. Additionally, any agreements involving credit repair services should be reviewed to ensure they do not charge illegal advance fees or use misleading enrollment practices.
Entity
Credit Glory LLC
Industry
Financial ServicesOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/08/ftc-stops-sprawling-credit-repair-scheme-scammed-consumers-out-nearly-200-million
CreditGlory Order
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/CreditGlory-Order.pdf
CreditGlory Complaint
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/CreditGlory-Complaint.pdf
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Credit Glory LLC"
"made false and misleading promises about their credit repair services, impersonated debt collection companies and creditors, collected illegal upfront fees and engaged in unlawful subscription enrollment practices"
"the FTC Act, the Credit Repair Organizations Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act"
"a federal court has temporarily halted a bogus credit repair scheme"
The FTC referred a complaint against REPS & Company Inc. and company executives, alleging they bypassed ticket-issuer security controls and purchasing limits to acquire millions of tickets for resale. The complaint was filed by the Department of Justice, and the case will be decided by the court; the press release does not report a penalty or other remedy imposed.
The FTC sued Digital Forensics Corporation LLC and affiliated defendants, alleging they misled sextortion victims with promises of investigative and monitoring services that often were not provided, and used fake positive reviews. A federal court granted the FTC’s request to temporarily halt the defendants’ activities; the complaint remains for the court to decide.
The FTC alleged that Greenway Auto Group advertised vehicle prices thousands of dollars below the amounts consumers actually paid and used mailers falsely suggesting recipients had won cash prizes. Greenway agreed to an order requiring transparent pricing and prohibiting deceptive prize mailers and other misrepresentations; the press release does not state a monetary penalty.
The FTC sent warning letters to 24 large healthcare services companies, cautioning that incomplete, inaccurate, or untimely pricing information for scheduled medical care may be unfair or deceptive. The letters urge recipients to review their price-disclosure practices and take corrective action; they announce no fine or formal order.
$1.9M
The FTC alleged that Premier Franchising Group LLC and Franchise Fastlane LLC made deceptive and unsubstantiated claims about the Premier Martial Arts franchise opportunity and violated the Franchise Rule. The proposed settlements require the companies to pay a combined $1.85 million to compensate franchisees, prohibit certain misrepresentations, and require Franchise Rule compliance; certain franchisees may also cancel their agreements without penalty.
The FTC, Utah, and Nevada sued Lens.com Inc., alleging that it advertised artificially low contact lens prices while hiding mandatory checkout charges and misleading consumers about its AutoRefill subscription. The complaint seeks to stop the alleged practices; the court has not yet decided the case, and no penalty or remedy has been imposed.