USOBA Suckers Republicans to Influence the Federal Trade Commission Against Debt Settlement Regulations

In a move that flies in the face of protecting consumers at large, the United State Organization of Bankruptcy Alternatives (USOBA) has enlisted the help of the following Republican Members of Congress to attempt to sway the Federal Trade Commission from issuing upcoming rules that will impact upfront fee debt settlement companies.

The cover letter the Congressmen appears to clearly attempt to influence the Federal Trade Commission at the direction of USOBA.

FTC USOBA Cover Letter

Congress Members That Signed the Letter to the FTC on Behalf of USOBA

  • Pete Sessions (R) Texas
  • Jeb Hensarling (R) Texas
  • Marsha Blackburn (R) Tennessee
  • Dan Burton (R) Indiana
  • John Carter (R) Texas
  • Michael Conaway (R) Texas
  • Mary Fallin (R) Oklahoma
  • Ralph Hall (R) Texas
  • Ron Paul (R) Texas
  • Sam Johnson (R) Texas
  • Michael McCaul (R) Texas
  • Sue Myrick (R) North Carolina
  • Randy Neugebauer (R) Texas
  • Pete Olson (R) Texas

Others have spoken out specifically in favor of an upfront fee ban by debt settlement companies in order to protect consumers from paying thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in fees for services they will never receive from debt settlement companies.

By admission from USOBA, who is unwilling to present specific data on the individual success rate and failure rate of member agencies, or even the names of its member agencies, the vast majority of consumers are not successful in resolving all of their debt.

When a consumers pays 15% of enrolled debt in an upfront fee and only settles a fraction of their enrolled debt the actual fee for service is multiplied many times over. For example, a consumer that enrolls $40,000 in debt in a USOBA approved program would pay $6,000 in upfront debt settlement fees. If the consumers only settled 33% of the debt, or $13,200 of the debt, the total fee paid effectively would have been 45%.

The Federal Trade Commission, many advisory groups, and some state laws, support the contingency fee model where a consumer would pay for actual services received as debts are settled and not just upfront fees for hope that all debts get settled.

Despite that fact USOBA continues to push its agenda to continue upfront fees as critical for the industry to survive.

Pay As You Go Fee Ban

The argument is made in the USOBA graphic that banning upfront fees would make it impossible for debt settlement companies to continue operating. That is factually not true. Debt settlement companies are operating now on a contingency fee basis. And the only reason why current debt settlement companies would not be able to switch to a contingency fee model is because they are undercapitalized and have spent the fees they have collected before actually delivering the services they promised.

USOBA states that the upfront fee ban would cause 85% of their members to close and displace workers. But that is not a valid reason to continue a practice which grossly harms consumers. The argument then becomes that bad actors need to stay in business to continue jobs that hurt, rather than help consumers.

The statement is also made that an upfront fee ban would eliminate debt settlement as a bankruptcy alternative. Again, that is factually not true. If 85% of USOBA members would go out of business that leaves 15% of members still offering services and debt settlement as an alternative. It has also been said that remaining debt settlement companies would most likely employ more people to deal with their now growing operations.

USOBA Offers No Real Facts

Rather than USOBA stepping up with data showing real success of member programs they offer up a survey of “of almost 700 American workers who service debt settlement consumers.” – Source

Here is what USOBA offers up as supporting facts about the success of their programs:

  • According to a survey of almost 700 American workers who service debt settlement
    consumers regularly under the fee structure that the advocates want to eliminate:

    • 65% reported providing value and/or services to consumers other than the settlement of debts in the form of financial literacy and education, information on how to deal with creditor harassment or threats, “handholding” and emotional support, program coaching and budgeting support;
    • Almost 30% reported being told by debtors that their debt settlement program “saved their marriage” or “saved their health;”
    • 27% were told by debtors their debt settlement program “saved their life;”
    • Almost 40% reported being told by debtors that their debt settlement program “saved their home;”
    • 86% (almost 9 in 10) of those employees surveyed confirmed that they and their debt settlement company provided value or service to consumers/debtors other than settling debts; [So does that mean that 14% of debt settlement company employees think they don’t provide value or service?] and
  • Consumers themselves -who took the time to write to the FTC during the rulemaking comment period – submitted testimonials that ran 40 to 1 in support of debt settlement programs operating under thefee structure that the advocates want to eliminate. [Yes but only 200 people wrote in. I’m surprised they could not get more employees to send letters.]

These statements are hollow at best and don’t reflect the actual results received by consumers from USOBA member debt settlement companies. All they say is that some of the employees at some debt settlement companies were told by at least one person the statements cited above.

Even the position that submitted testimonials received by the FTC supported upfront fees by 200 people that wrote in, what they fail to mention are the 3,5000+ complaints received by the BBB or the lawsuits and investigations by Attorneys’ General into unfair and deceptive practices of upfront fee debt settlement companies.

Competition Instead of Concern for Consumers

By its own statements, USOBA is trying to influence the Federal Trade Commission against banning advanced fees in order to protect competition against credit counseling groups.

However, the “pay as you go” fee ban would eliminate debt negotiation and settlement services, which are the principal competition to credit counseling services. From a business perspective, virtually outlawing competition would improve the revenues of credit counseling services. – Source

USOBA does not understand the goal in helping consumers is to provide the most appropriate resource needed to address the consumers situation at hand. If the consumer is placed first then no alternative or solution is competitive. Clearly USOBA debt settlement companies place competition and income above the best interest of consumers.

Again, More Fuzzy USOBA Logic

Here are some more questionable statements and positions USOBA makes in the supporting documentation.

  • “Often, sufficient savings are accumulated within a year for settlement offers to be made and accepted.”Source. But USOBA pulls up short again in giving evidence that other than a few consumers that originally enrolled actually achieve this. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has stated “What we have learned is that 65 percent of people who initially enroll with debt settlement companies drop out before any communication (with creditors) has been made. Before any of their debt has been settled at all.” – Source.
  • “Unlike credit counseling services, debt negotiation and settlement services receive no funding from creditors.” But if these programs provided a tangible benefit that creditors could identify there is no reason to assume that these programs would not receive compensation from creditors for valuable services.
  • “”Pay as you go fees” are the norm for personal services that are spread out over a period of time. For example, attorneys routinely charge customers for services rendered, even before cases are settled or decided in court.” – Source. But what USOBA fails to mention is that attorneys have a fiduciary duty to their client, and must place retainers and advance fees in escrow/trust accounts and take the money as it is earned. Lawyers must provide a complete and timely accounting of escrowed funds in the client trust account and promptly pay out any funds due the client. Debt settlement companies have a seemingly strict no refund policy and commingle and spend advanced fees received before services are delivered.
  • “A move by the FTC to unduly restrict the fees of debt settlement companies would result in an even greater shift of power to harassing creditors and debt collectors, the very operators who are the basis for the majority of consumer FTC complaints.” – Source. Again an untrue statement. If debt settlement companies went out of business and more consumers turned to bankruptcy as USOBA claims, consumers would have significantly superior protections under current bankruptcy law to silence creditors and collectors, authority debt settlement does not provide.
  • “Debt negotiation and settlement services are involved in resolving large amounts of debt. A survey completed by approximately one-quarter of United States Organizations for Bankruptcy Alternatives (USOBA) members revealed that nearly $7 billion of debt has been enrolled in debt settlement programs by roughly 277,000 customers. Nearly $1.5 billion of unsecured debt has been settled.” – Source. So even USOBA can’t get its members to provide meaningful data. It is hard to draw any reliable conclusion when 75% of USOBA members would not complete a survey.


You are not alone. I'm here to help. There is no need to suffer in silence. We can get through this. Tomorrow can be better than today. Don't give up.

Do you have a question you'd like to ask me for free? Go ahead and click here.

Damon Day - Pro Debt Coach

I can always use your help. If you have a tip or information you want to share, you can get it to me confidentially if you click here.

Follow Me
Steve Rhode is the Get Out of Debt Guy and has been helping good people with bad debt problems since 1994. You can learn more about Steve, here.
Steve Rhode
Follow Me
See also  Beware of Omni Home Solutions and Rampart MMW Says Former Client

7 thoughts on “USOBA Suckers Republicans to Influence the Federal Trade Commission Against Debt Settlement Regulations”

  1. Steve- One problem with your report as it is. I understand you are addressing specifically the FTC rules but you base the writing on “banning up-front fees”. If the new proposed laws pass, upfront fees will be banned but no company will be able to operate at the current proposed 5% back end settlement fee- My company, as you know, has never charged upfront fees.
    Further, what the upfront fee basis has really allowed for is affiliate sales companies. Without the ability to charge upfront for service, the settlement companies would not be able to pay the affiliate sales companies for their sales (or even cover their marketing costs).
    If the change were to: %50- set up, $50- monthly maintenance and up to 30% of the difference saved, it would eliminate all affiliates (read “Bad Actors”) and force settlement companies to earn their money. Why this is not a consideration is puzzling. As the proposed laws stand, again, only the lawyers are left as the option.
    You have stated many times that you are in favor of reform, that debt settlement does work when done correctly and you think the legal model is a bad idea. I have seen you publicly support one software program & one settlement company that, until VERY recently, charged their fees upfront, and I have seen that you have some access & influence on some of the rule makers; But i have yet to see you actually say that the above scenario is THE ONLY OPTION THAT WOULD HELP CONSUMERS- As it most certainly is. Further, I invite you to interview our= company. Come see our operation. Look at our files. See why we are a very small operation with only a third of our staff in sales. Look at our contracts and disclosure process. If you really want something positive to be the end result here, it seems you may have a moral responsibility to at least examine how this process DOES work, is successful and is keeping consumers with few options from having to file bankruptcy.
    The invitation is here- Please come unannounced- We welcome it.

    Thank you as always for your site!

    • Sean,

      Why don’t we start with your public disclosure of the open and transparent measurements as New Era just did. See my article on them today.

      Sound like a fair first step?


      • I reviewed the New Era information. I am not sure that I understand it correctly. They indicate a retainer and then 15% of account balance. I assume it is the full balance at time of settlement or is it the balance at enrollment? The link to their Terms & Conditions does not open. Their model & statistics, although a little confusing, I applaud! I would love to try and gather those actual statistics by auditing all of our client files but the timing is not right at the present. I will say however, that at a quick glance, my company does rival theirs. With the pending legislation as it is written, I really do not see the necessity of an audit of that nature & we are not simply looking for an endorsement of our company- but rather an endorsement of the model as a successful one;
        As always, I enjoy this site very much & am here daily when I can. I think perhaps if you could see our model or New Era’s 1st hand it might give you the ability to simply write an article entitled The Best Option For Consumers. Refer the FTC and Government contacts you have to the truth! As it stands, New Era & my company will not be able to operate (read “help people”) if something similar passes. They will be left with bankruptcy or possibly a law model ( likely 18% in the first year in fees- no refund no matter what!!!) Our model, if the client ends up at any time without the ability to pay- GETS THEIR MONEY BACK without paying us! To kill the entire industry is such a waste of help and talent that it simply makes me ill! Yes, kill the 85% of companies who are not helping people- but leave the good guys. We too have NEVER collected up front fees & because of that, we have no affiliates, we have remained a small company with slow growth & we have earned our money in every case.

        Thank you again! -Sean

  2. Steve, how would you like to be super-famous? Please start some sort of attention on this issue before consumers again get screwed. This issue and the horror stories of debt settlement should be on the nightly news. But nobody even knows about it. If it was, representatives wouldn’t have the nerve to stick up for Usoba and this scummy industry.

  3. Steve,
    When is all this madness going to end in your opinion. In other words, how long until the reform passes? I am frustrated by the fact that USOBA and TASC has their army of employees and owners doing everything they can to stop reform and consumer protection while the TRUTH gets almost no media coverage. Those “congressman” who signed that b.s. letter should be brought into the spotlight and rece Iive a million letters condemning their special-interest service and for completely disregarding consumer protection. The DS industry is so eager to portray themselves as clean and legitimate…only one problem: They’re NOT. It’s all about quick profits on the backs of struggling consumers.

    • James,

      When it comes to regulation, protection and legislation, the wheels might move slowly, but they do move. It’s tough for people to be patient and let this play out when 10,000-100,000 consumers a month are being enrolled in advance fee or upfront fee debt settlement programs that are not going to perform for them.

      The people on the front lines of debt settlement believe that change is coming and inevitable but it will move slowly and then happen quickly.



Leave a Comment