RSS
FTC Declares Rachel From Cardholder Services 'Enemy Number 1'; Files Complaints Against Five Scammy Robocollers
from the always-in-arizona-and-florida dept
A few weeks ago, we noted that the FTC was offering up $50,000 to anyone who could help stop "Rachel from cardholder services" robocalls. It appears they don't really need that much help, as the agency has filed complaints against five such operations based in Arizona and Florida (why is it that so many scammy operations seem to be based in Florida and Arizona?). FTC boss Jon Leibowitz overstates his organization's infatuation with robocalls:
“At the FTC, Rachel from Cardholder Services is public enemy number one,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “We’re cracking down on illegal robocalls by bringing law enforcement actions and pursuing technical solutions to the problem.”Of course, I think that it's important not to get confused about what the real problem is here. While robocalls are both annoying and illegal, the real problem isn't the calling, but the scams behind the calls. They're basically trying to get people to fork over money for services that are never actually delivered.
In the robocall cases announced today, the FTC alleges that the defendants place automated calls to consumers, typically with a prerecorded message from “Rachel” or someone else from “Cardholder Services.” The calls purport to have an “important message” regarding an opportunity to reduce high credit card interest rates. Consumers are urged to “press 1” to connect with a live representative, or “press 2” to discontinue getting such calls. Consumers who press 1 are connected to live telemarketers. Most consumers have no way to screen the calls using Caller ID, as the incoming number allegedly is often “spoofed,” or displayed as a false number. In many cases, the name displayed on the Caller ID is so generic, such as “Card Services,” that it provides little information about who is calling.The charges filed against the operations include both charges for making false claims and also for violating telemarketing laws, but it seems that the false claims/fraud stuff is the much bigger deal. Instead, however, the FTC seems to focus the publicity aspect on its "fight against robocalls." I realize that may generate publicity, but isn't the fraud aspect the bigger deal?
According to the FTC, consumers who reach a live telemarketer are then pitched allegedly deceptive offers to have their credit card interest rates substantially reduced, sometimes to as low as 6.9 or even zero percent. The telemarketers allegedly guarantee that lowering card interest rates will save the consumers thousands of dollars in finance charges in a short period of time and will allow them to pay off the balances more quickly. Some telemarketers allegedly claim that consumers will save at least $2,500 in finance charges and will be able to pay off their balances two to three times faster, without increasing their monthly payments.
In some cases, according to the FTC, the telemarketers claim to be calling from the consumer’s credit card company. In other cases, they use “Cardholder Services” to suggest a relationship with a bank or credit card company. If the consumer expresses an interest in the rate reduction offer, the telemarketer sometimes conducts a purported “audit” to determine whether the consumer qualifies. Consumers provide their financial and personal information, and are then put on hold while the “audit” is completed. According to the FTC, the “audit” typically is used only to determine whether consumers have enough credit available on their credit cards to pay the company’s fee.
I’m looking for research...
Who Are App Developers?
Why Data Is The New Oil, With Dan Foreman Of Lumi Mobile
I’m looking for policy...
Policy Resources: Software Patents
Developers On Patents: Ron Garret of Awun
I have a business...
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
The Talent Wars: Today's Toughest Startup Challenge
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Fraud may be bigger, but just calls affect more people, silly.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fraud may be bigger, but just calls affect more people, silly.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fraud may be bigger, but just calls affect more people, silly.
I'm beginning to think that people are just instinctively reporting OOTB. I mean, I actually thought the same thing., that there might be a correlation between regulations and scammers.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fraud may be bigger, but just calls affect more people, silly.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fraud may be bigger, but just calls affect more people, silly.
I can't say for sure, because I don't know the laws in FL or AZ. But how sure are you that the existing laws in those states are good enough to fight this problem if enforced?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fraud may be bigger, but just calls affect more people, silly.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Fraud vs. Inconvenience?
But then it is not all that hard to resist the fraud. Simply don't ever follow up on an offer from a phone call. If someone calls me to sell something I never buy. I never press #1, tell them anything, never, no matter what. Just this last summer I had totally legitimate calls regarding some financial stuff I really did want to do. I still didn't act on the calls as I could not verify the callers, instead initiated my own contact with the firm by a path I knew was correct and not some phishing scam.
It isn't that I don't wish for the FTC to protect people from fraud. I am glad they do and do not regret the tax money to hire their people to do that. The interruptions affect me personally in a way the fraud doesn't. The FTC folks want to show their actions matter, not just to someone somewhere but to you.
The endless robocalls are more than annoying interruptions. They degrade the phone. People are harder to reach on the phone, if they accept calls at all, because we are sick and tired of all the spam. Several people I know who dropped their land lines for cell only tell me part of their reason was the lesser number of bogus calls on cell. How many people don't pick up at all, merely let the machine pick up and decide if they want to talk? Leave a message at the beep.
The telephone itself is at stake here.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Not too bad.
As an aside, last time someone called me I told them that it was my opinion that they were in violation of the law and they could ask their corporate lawyers why my opinion matters to them (points if anyone knows what I was referencing) so I don't think I will be hearing from them again.
Does anyone know specifics regarding the CAN-SPAM act, because it was supposed to mean you need to be able to unsubscribe from this sort of thing (or is it just email?) easily, but I've told them at least three times to get rid of me, each time they've said they will, and each time I get calls.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not too bad.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
RoboCalls
I think it is important to read between the lines.
The FTC is upset over the robocalls because they have personally been pestered by these people.
The FTC doesn't care about the fraud as they haven't fallen victim to the scam.
This is how the government works. Nothing is real, or important until it happens to one of them or one of their lobbyists.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RoboCalls
The FTC doesn't care about the fraud as they haven't fallen victim to the scam.
Not quite. It's the FTC's job to do something about the robocalls, but they aren't law enforcement and have no power to deal with the fraud. It's the FBI's job to tackle the fraud, but they have no authority to prevent people using the telephone network.
Perhaps now the FTC have shown a lead, the FBI will stir themselves.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RoboCalls
From the FTC website:
http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/brfovrvw.shtm
1. Administrative Enforcement
In the administrative process, the Commission makes the initial determination that a practice violates the law in either an adjudicative or rulemaking proceeding.
(a) Adjudication
Under Section 5(b) of the FTC Act, the Commission may challenge "unfair or deceptive act[s] or practice[s]" (or violations of other consumer protection statutes) through maintenance of an administrative adjudication. When there is "reason to believe" that a law violation has occurred, the Commission may issue a complaint setting forth its charges. If the respondent elects to settle the charges, it may sign a consent agreement (without admitting liability), consent to entry of a final order, and waive all right to judicial review. If the Commission accepts such a proposed consent agreement, it places the order on the record for thirty days of public comment (or for such other period as the Commission may specify) before determining whether to make the order final.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Hope to see some stiff Jail Sentences for this trash.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I got my first call today from someone other than Rachel
When I clicked through; the person claimed they do not have a do not call list; which may be the most honest thing they've ever said.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not too bad.
For some people, those minutes also cost them money. I don't use enough of my minutes for it to matter, but I also get annoyed when robots answer & I just hang up on them. A few times I've held 0 to go to a person to complain & be removed.
The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 only applies to E-mail, if I read it right.
When I saw the title, I planned on commenting on CAN-SPAM too, but for different reasons.
A few, actually known companies (& one who I had to look up to see if he actually existed; he does, but is still a troll) are now in violation w/ that Law & I'm intending to contact Law Enforcement, & was wondering who I need to call to report them (I doubt my local police know); would it be the FTC, the FBI, who? I'm planning to write my Congressman, too.
One outright refused to even investigate, after I contacted them about a 2nd E-mail sent after I was supposed to be unsubscribed fully, which I got 9 days after contacting who was being advertised directly, which was supposed to have gotten me removed from all of thier lists (I found a way to give them more info, & they refused to look at it); the Troll is a repeat offender; & the other 3 have at least tried to be helpful).
For the longest, my Junk Mail count was low. I've guarded my info & limit who has my contact info. This year, I'm getting double-digit amounts of spam at a time (it isn't daily, but is inching that way), & have noticed I get bursts from 2 or 3 of the "Can-Spam Compliance" companies they all use now every few days (which companies cycle), & the frequency of the spam is increasing.
I am fed up w/ this & want to contact the right agency to get an investigation going. Both the letter, as well as the spirit, of this law is being violated & I want it fixed!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
There's one other real simple way to miss them. Don't answer the phone for who you don't know. You might occasional miss some call you really need but the percentages are that you'll loose far less of your time being tied up in what someone else things is important to get your money rather than what you think is important.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Retirees
Think of all those elderly folks who live on those states.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought all telemarketing calls to cell phones were considered illegal at one time. That means nothing if it can't be enforced or has no penalty.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Just got another one!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Working for a company like this
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Canned Spam
We get about 3 calls a day from Rachel, and she's annoying as all hell. It used to be illegal for this to happen, but I suppose that the 'do not call' list isn't completely leak proof.
As for fraud, guess they're working their way up to actual charges on that matter. It takes time to link cases to charges.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Canned Spam
I like to report these calls to 8oonotes.com (check it out) and see who else has been getting the same calls as me.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
RoboCalls
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
iphone hack for Rachels calls
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
These calls are more than just calls
I also started a contact named "Cardholder Services" on my mobile phone. Each new number, I add to the contact and ignore it. It was the only way to save my sanity.
THESE PEOPLE NEED TO BE STOPPED!! THEY ARE SCAMMERS AND HARASSERS!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
FTC is toothless and weak
My state attorney general has already won cases against the same outfit in Florida - yet I am unaware of any recovery having been made or there being any real impact on their blatantly illegal activity.
And as the writer of this article clearly points out - while the robocalls are illegal by themselves - the bigger issue is that these are 100% scams. They pray on people with the mega-high interest rate credit cards (but there are those with more "reasonable" rates also falling for it). Further, these people, when you press the button to speak to someone to get them to stop - they often are rude, use profanity, or just laugh at you and dare you to do anything. Why? Because they KNOW that the FTC and other agencies have no real recourse. Their calling computers generate fake caller ID information - so tracing the real source is very difficult.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Robocaller gets info from Experian
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Unstoppable - deal with it
1) Much of this solicitation is from overseas and thus outside of U.S. jurisdiction and laws, so forget about stopping most of it.
2) The F.B.I. is far too busy and understaffed to be messing around with annoying phone calls.
3) Phone numbers are "spoofed" so that you cannot just block them - they change constantly. If you have caller ID and return the call, it will either ring in some innocent person's phone, or it will come back as "disconnected." They leave no trace.
4) They use high speed autodialers to spam the phone networks which is why you receive so many calls. It must be productive or they would give up, so there are still "suckers born every minute" and more elderly with cognitive dysfunction who cannot intelligently screen for scams.
5) They are high-speed, high volume operations, so they do not have time to "remove" your number from the call list. In fact they have no idea what number the computer dialed.
In short, no one can stop it...not the FBI, not the FTC, not law enforcement, not being on "no call" lists because they are off-shore and our U.S. laws do not apply. You can either ignore the phone and use an answering machine to screen calls, or you can check your caller ID for unknown numbers or callers and not answer. We have been so conditioned to jump when the phone rings that we ignore common sense. Tell your friends to leave a message and you'll call them right back.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Crush them telephone frauds
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyway, I second the idea that banks should give out "phishing catching" credit card numbers: these would be fake numbers that pass security checks but aren't connected to a bank account and will flag the bank when the card is used.
Everyone is so concerned about blocking the calls, but real the solution should be to follow the money. Yes, these companies are spoofing phone numbers, but they're obviously using the credit card information they receive. Why aren't people complaining about fraudulent charges? Even if their name on the statement is something obscure, why can't the banks or FBI trace the charges back to the merchant?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
They Dropped Rachel
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
credit card holder services
Please tell me how to call them so I can sue for cell phone charges they stuck me with due to them calling so much!
575-487-0952
This is the number they just called me from just now today
They hang up if you press 1 to tell to to stop calling me!
Sincerely want it to stop!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment