Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Payments industry legal expert, Barrie VanBrackle, of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP, said the FTC made these allegations against the named processors because there was a belief that "the merchants used these deceptive methods with the assistance and knowing cooperation of their payment processors, or, conversely, the payment processors suggested these payment mechanisms to merchants."
On July 30, 2013, the FTC disclosed news of a filing against Merchant Services Direct LLC. The agency, with assistance from the Washington State Attorney General's Office and the Better Business Bureau of Eastern Washington, North Idaho, and Montana, is taking legal steps to review and isolate fault on a multitude of merchant complaints alleging MSD has been misrepresenting itself.
The FTC press release explaining the MSD claim, stated that the FTC "files a complaint when it has 'reason to believe' that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest." The merchant allegations filed against MSD range from the company's lack of disclosure regarding fees, to publicizing unfounded guarantees, to a misrepresentation of the contractual process.
In all of these instances, the FTC's decision to file against the defendants is in accordance with language in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act indicating unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are prohibited.
The claims against Landmark and AEC were settled out of court; however they led to an FTC initiative to change language in the Federal Telemarketing Sales Rule, which would prohibit sellers and telemarketers at large from accepting unauthorized forms of payment. The decision on the rule change will be made following the formal comment period scheduled to end Aug. 8, 2013.
The MSD case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. In addition to filing the lawsuit, the FTC also sought a court order requiring the company to immediately halt unlawful practices, as well as an order to freeze the defendants' assets and appoint a receiver over the corporate defendants.
These recent actions have caused a great deal of speculation within the industry, with experts at July's Midwest Acquirers annual meeting openly cautioning processors and acquirers to be even more diligent in auditing the intent and actions of their boarded merchants, as well as in-house practices. VanBrackle recounted these comments, saying sentiments overall seemed to indicate a situation that is "emblematic for the entire industry at large."
VanBrackle agreed the ISO underwriting process should be strengthened to include compliance measures that review a new merchant's business plan; she also believes risk-aversion audits can be put into place by processors and acquirers alike to periodically monitor activities of a representative ISO or contracted merchant.
When asked what could be done to counter any negative perceptions the FTC rulings might foster regarding the industry's image, VanBrackle added, "I'd love to see the trade associations step in on behalf of the industry to coordinate with the FTC prior to a suspected party being charged."
She feels this type of partnership could potentially mitigate future allegations before they become public and would also create a unified voice for the industry that would boost the industry's credibility among the public.
Editor's Note:
The Green Sheet Inc. is now a proud affiliate of Bankcard Life, a premier community that provides industry-leading training and resources for payment professionals. Click here for more information.
Notice to readers: These are archived articles. Contact names or information may be out of date. We regret any inconvenience.
