Hoskin v. ASAP Credit Repair, Case No. 4:26-cv-02533

Primary Source: View Original Complaint (PDF) — Hoskin v. ASAP Credit Repair, Case No. 4:26-cv-02533

Facts as Alleged in the Complaint

The following facts are taken directly from the complaint filed by Charlessa M. Hoskin against ASAP Credit Repair in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on March 30, 2026. These are allegations only; no finding of fact has been made.

1. Plaintiff brings this action seeking redress for violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act (“CROA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et seq., the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“ADTPA”), pursuant to Ala. Code § 8-19-1 et seq., breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.
2. The Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 as the CROA is a federal statute.
3. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
4. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).
5. Plaintiff is a natural person and consumer, over 18 years-of-age, residing in Mobile, Alabama.
6. Defendant is a credit repair organization claiming to help consumers achieve financial stability through their offerings designed to assist consumers with becoming debt-free and enjoying improved credit.
7. In 2021, Plaintiff was facing financial difficulties and had a number of debts prompting her to begin looking for companies who may be able to assist her in maintaining her creditworthiness and resolving her financial obligations.
8. Subsequently thereafter, Plaintiff discovered Defendant through its representation that it could help consumers resolve their financial obligations by removing negative items from her credit report and improving their credit.
9. Plaintiff spoke with Defendant and Defendant’s agent represented to Plaintiff that it would be able to: (1) remove negative accounts from her consumer credit reports; and (2) improve Plaintiff’s credit scores.
10. Defendant further represented to Plaintiff that all she would need to do is make monthly payments over a certain period of time and that Defendant would utilize the payments to expeditiously resolve Plaintiff’s enrolled debts and remove negative accounts from her consumer credit reports.
11. In 2021, having relied on Defendant’s representations, Plaintiff formally enrolled into Defendant’s credit repair program by entering into a contract with Defendant.
12. Pursuant to the contract, Plaintiff was obligated to make an upfront payment of $300, and monthly payments of approximately $100.
13. Plaintiff proceeded to make her monthly payments to Defendant in a timely manner.
14. During the enrollment period, Plaintiff was repeatedly informed that Defendant was actively removing negative items from her credit report and she would be able to purchase a home within a specific timeframe.
15. Despite Defendant’s assurances, Defendant failed to remove major negative tradelines from her credit report as Defendant represented it would.
16. Despite Defendant’s representations, Plaintiff’s credit score did not improve.
17. Plaintiff signed up for Defendant’s debt settlement and credit improvement services based on its representations that it would remove negative accounts from her consumer credit reports and qualify her to purchase a home within a specific timeframe.
18. Throughout its dealings with Plaintiff, Defendant deceptively and misleadingly strung Plaintiff along, telling her what she wanted to hear in order for her to keep making payments, only to turn around and fail to deliver on the promises and representations that induced Plaintiff’s continued participation in Defendant’s debt settlement program.
19. Furthermore, Defendant repeatedly informed Plaintiff that it was working on removing negative accounts from her consumer credit reports.
20. However, Defendant chronically failed to remove the vast majority of Plaintiff’s negative tradelines from her credit reports.
21. Despite Plaintiff paying into Defendant’s program enough for Defendant to negotiate Plaintiff’s debt, Defendant failed to meaningfully (1) remove negative accounts from her consumer credit reports; and (2) improve Plaintiff’s credit score.
22. Approximately one year after enrolling into Defendant’s program, Defendant only removed a few credit inquiries from her credit report.
23. Plaintiff suffered significant damages as result of Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions, including: financial losses, emotional distress, aggravation, mental anguish, decreased credit score.
24. Simply put, Plaintiff found herself in a much worse financial position after enrolling in Defendant’s credit improvement program.

Claims for Relief

Count I — Violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et seq. The complaint alleges Defendant violated CROA § 1679b(a)(3) and (a)(4) by making untrue and misleading representations about its services and engaging in deceptive acts in connection with the offer or sale of credit repair services. The complaint further alleges Defendant violated CROA § 1679b(b) by charging and receiving money for services before those services were fully performed. The complaint alleges Defendant violated CROA § 1679c by failing to provide required written disclosures to the consumer. The complaint also alleges Defendant violated CROA § 1679d by failing to include a required bold-face cancellation disclosure in immediate proximity to the space reserved for Plaintiff’s signature on the contract.

Count II — Violations of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), Ala. Code § 8-19-1 et seq. The complaint alleges Defendant violated the ADTPA by, inter alia, unfairly and deceptively (1) failing to provide credit improvement services to the best of its ability; (2) putting its financial interests ahead of Plaintiff’s interests; (3) representing to Plaintiff that its program would allow her to qualify to purchase a home; and (4) falsely representing to Plaintiff it could delete names off of Plaintiff’s consumer reports when it had no intention, or ability to do so.

Count III — Breach of Contract. The complaint alleges Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiff by, inter alia, (1) failing to provide credit improvement services to the best of its ability; (2) putting its financial interests ahead of Plaintiff’s interests; (3) falsely informing Plaintiff it could delete names off of Plaintiff’s consumer reports when it had no intention, or ability to do so.

Count IV — Breach of Fiduciary Duty. The complaint alleges Defendant owed Plaintiff a fiduciary duty because Plaintiff reposed a special confidence in Defendant and Defendant was bound to act in good faith and with due regard of Plaintiff. Specifically, Plaintiff entrusted Defendant with her money and to use her money in a responsible manner to improve her credit. The complaint alleges Defendant breached that fiduciary duty by, inter alia, (1) failing to provide credit improvement services to the best of its ability; (2) putting its financial interests ahead of Plaintiff’s interests; (3) representing to Plaintiff that its program would allow her to qualify to purchase a home; and (4) falsely representing to Plaintiff it could delete names off of Plaintiff’s consumer reports when it had no intention, or ability to do so.

Remedies Sought

• A judgment in Plaintiff’s favor for Defendant’s violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act
• An award of actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1679g(a)(1)
• An award of punitive damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1679g(a)(2)(A)
• An award of Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1679g(a)(3)
• Declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act
• Awarding Plaintiff actual damages pursuant to Ala. Code § 8-19-10(a)(1)
• Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages pursuant to Ala. Code § 8-19-10(a)(2)
• Enjoining Defendant from further violations of law pursuant to Ala. Code § 8-19-10(a)(3)
• Awarding Plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to Ala. Code § 8-19-10(a)(3)
• Declaring that Defendant breached the underlying contract
• Awarding Plaintiff actual and punitive damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty
• Any further relief the Honorable Court finds to be just and appropriate

Frequently Asked Questions

Has ASAP Credit Repair been found liable?

No. This is a complaint — a legal filing that contains allegations. ASAP Credit Repair has not been found liable for any wrongdoing. Courts require proof before entering judgment.

What does the Credit Repair Organizations Act prohibit?

The Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et seq., is a federal law that regulates companies that charge fees to help consumers improve their credit. Among other things, the CROA prohibits credit repair organizations from making untrue or misleading representations about their services (§ 1679b(a)(3)), engaging in deceptive acts in connection with the sale of credit repair services (§ 1679b(a)(4)), and charging or receiving payment for services before those services are fully performed (§ 1679b(b)). The law also requires specific written disclosures and contract terms, including a bold-face notice of the consumer’s right to cancel within three business days.

What is the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act?

The Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), Ala. Code § 8-19-1 et seq., broadly prohibits unfair and deceptive business practices in the conduct of trade or commerce in Alabama. A consumer who suffers damages from a violation may seek actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees under Ala. Code § 8-19-10.

What is required in a credit repair contract under the CROA?

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1679d, a credit repair organization must include in its contract a conspicuous statement in bold-face type, in immediate proximity to the space reserved for the consumer’s signature, informing the consumer that they may cancel the contract without penalty or obligation at any time before midnight of the 3rd business day after the date on which they signed the contract. The contract must also be accompanied by a notice of cancellation form.

What does “breach of fiduciary duty” mean in this context?

A fiduciary duty arises when one party reposes a special confidence in another, who is then obligated to act in good faith and with due regard for the first party’s interests. The complaint alleges that by accepting Plaintiff’s money for the purpose of improving her credit, ASAP Credit Repair took on a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff. A breach occurs when the party holding that duty acts in its own financial interest at the expense of the person who trusted it.

Source: CourtListener — Hoskin v. ASAP Credit Repair, Docket 73115429. Information on this page is taken from the court complaint. These are allegations; no finding of fact has been made.