Burnside v. The Credit Repair Shop, Case No. 2:26-cv-00382

Primary Source: Complaint — Burnside v. The Credit Repair Shop, Case No. 2:26-cv-00382 (E.D. Wis.) (PDF)

Facts as Alleged in the Complaint

The following facts are taken directly from the complaint. These are allegations only and have not been proven in court.

I. Jurisdiction and Venue

1. This action arises under federal law including the Credit Repair Organizations Act (15 U.S.C. §1679 et seq.) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. §1962).
2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331.
3. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.
4. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 because the acts complained of occurred within this district.

II. Parties

1. Plaintiff Steve Burnside is an adult resident of the State of Wisconsin.
2. Defendant The Credit Repair Shop is a credit repair business operating at 7901 West Burleigh Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53222.
3. Defendant Steven A. Williams is the owner, operator, and controlling person of The Credit Repair Shop.
4. At all relevant times Steven A. Williams exercised authority and control over the policies, practices, and business operations of the company.
5. Steven A. Williams personally directed and participated in the business practices alleged in this Complaint.
6. Because Steven A. Williams personally participated in the unlawful conduct, he is individually liable for damages caused by those actions.

III. Factual Allegations

1. Plaintiff worked for Defendants in connection with credit repair services offered to consumers.
2. From approximately 2020 through 2024 Defendants accepted upfront payments from consumers for credit repair services before services were completed.
3. Federal law prohibits credit repair organizations from charging or receiving payment before services are performed.
4. Plaintiff became aware of these unlawful practices during his employment.
5. Defendants knew Plaintiff had knowledge of these practices.
6. On February 20, 2026 Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment in retaliation for his knowledge of these unlawful practices.
7. Plaintiff possesses commission statements from former employee Jamil Mason demonstrating payments connected to credit repair services.
8. Following his termination Plaintiff applied for unemployment benefits.
9. Defendants knowingly submitted false information stating Plaintiff worked during the week ending February 28, 2026.
10. In truth Plaintiff had already been terminated on February 20, 2026.
11. Defendants’ false statements interfered with Plaintiff’s unemployment benefits and caused financial harm.

Claims for Relief

Count I — Violation of the Credit Repair Organizations Act

1. Defendants charged consumers upfront fees before services were completed.
2. Such conduct violates federal law governing credit repair organizations.

Count II — Retaliatory Termination

1. Plaintiff possessed knowledge of unlawful business practices.
2. Defendants terminated Plaintiff to prevent exposure of those practices.

Count III — False Statements / Defamation

1. Defendants knowingly provided false information to unemployment authorities.
2. These statements caused financial harm to Plaintiff.

Count IV — Civil RICO (18 U.S.C. §1962)

1. Defendants conducted an enterprise through a pattern of unlawful activity.
2. The enterprise consisted of The Credit Repair Shop controlled by Steven A. Williams.
3. Repeated unlawful collection of advance fees constituted a pattern of racketeering activity.

Damages Claimed

• Lost wages and employment income.
• Loss of unemployment benefits.
• Financial hardship and emotional distress.
• Treble damages under RICO.
• Punitive damages.

Remedies Sought

• Compensatory damages.
• Treble damages under Civil RICO.
• Punitive damages.
• Costs and any additional relief the Court deems just.

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA)?

The Credit Repair Organizations Act (15 U.S.C. §1679 et seq.) is a federal law that regulates companies offering credit repair services. Among its key provisions, CROA prohibits credit repair organizations from charging or receiving payment before services have been fully performed. The law is designed to protect consumers from deceptive practices in the credit repair industry.

What does “pro se” mean?

Pro se is a Latin term meaning “for oneself.” When a plaintiff files pro se, it means they are representing themselves in court without an attorney. Any person has the right to file a federal lawsuit without hiring a lawyer, though courts hold pro se filings to the same procedural rules as attorney-filed cases.

What is a civil RICO claim?

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. §1962) was originally enacted to combat organized crime but includes a civil provision allowing private individuals to sue. A civil RICO claim requires showing a pattern of racketeering activity — meaning at least two related predicate acts. If successful, RICO allows for treble damages, meaning the court can award three times the actual damages suffered.

What are treble damages?

Treble damages are a legal remedy that triples the amount of compensatory damages awarded. Under RICO, if a plaintiff proves their case, the court is required to award damages equal to three times the actual financial losses. This provision is intended to both punish wrongful conduct and deter others from similar behavior.

What is retaliatory termination?

Retaliatory termination occurs when an employer fires an employee in response to the employee engaging in a legally protected activity, such as reporting unlawful conduct. While specific protections vary by state and federal law, terminating an employee to prevent them from exposing illegal business practices may give rise to legal claims.

Source: Burnside v. The Credit Repair Shop, Case No. 2:26-cv-00382, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin. Filed March 10, 2026. Retrieved from CourtListener/RECAP Archive.