BrightSpeed Solutions, Inc. and Kevin Howard
Documents in this case
Case summary
On March 3, 2021, the Bureau filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against BrightSpeed Solutions, Inc. (BrightSpeed) and its founder and former chief executive officer, Kevin Howard. BrightSpeed was a privately-owned, third-party payment processor based in Chicago, Illinois. Howard founded BrightSpeed in 2015 and ran the company until he wound it down in March 2019. The Bureau alleged that between 2016 and 2018, Howard and BrightSpeed knowingly processed payments for companies that purported to offer technical-support services and products over the internet, but actually tricked consumers into purchasing expensive and unnecessary antivirus software or services. The Bureau alleged that Howard’s and BrightSpeed’s actions were unfair practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 and as well as deceptive telemarketing practices in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. On January 18, 2022, the Bureau filed a proposed stipulated judgment and order to resolve its claims, which the court entered on January 19, 2022. The stipulated judgment and order permanently bans defendants from the payment processing, consumer lending, deposit-taking, and financial advisory industries and from engaging in debt collection activities and telemarketing with respect to consumer financial products or services. The stipulated judgment and order also requires the defendants to pay $54 million in redress, which amount will be suspended upon Howard’s payment of a $500,000 civil money penalty.
Complaint ()
PDF of this document (14 pages)
Page 2
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CONSUMER FINANCIAL
) PROTECTION BUREAU,
)
) Plaintiff,
)
)
Case No.
v.
)
) BRIGHTSPEED SOLUTIONS, INC. and
) KEVIN HOWARD,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
COMPLAINT
1.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) brings this action against BrightSpeed Solutions, Inc. (“BrightSpeed”) and Kevin Howard alleging violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. §5531 and 5536(a)(1)(B), the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (Telemarketing Act), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101 et seq., and its implementing rule, the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 CFR § 310.3(b). Jurisdiction and Venue 2.
This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because it is brought under “Federal consumer financial law,” 12 U.S.C. § 5565(a)(1), presents a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and is brought by an agency of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1345. 3.
Venue is proper because Defendants BrightSpeed and Howard reside in and at all relevant times transacted business in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); 12 U.S.C. § 5564(f). Case: 1:21-cv-01199 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/03/21 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1
Page 3
Parties 4.
The Bureau is an independent agency of the United States created by the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5491(a). The Bureau has independent litigating authority and is authorized to initiate civil actions in federal district court to secure appropriate relief for violations of “Federal consumer financial law,” 12 U.S.C. § 5564, which includes the authority to enforce the TSR with respect to the offering or provision of a consumer financial product or service subject to the CFPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6102(c), 6105(d).
5.
Defendant BrightSpeed was a privately owned third-party payment processor incorporated in Illinois that transacted business nationwide. BrightSpeed processed remotely created check payments (RCCs) for entities that telemarketed antivirus software and technicalsupport services to consumers. BrightSpeed ceased operations on or around February 2019. 6.
BrightSpeed is a “covered person” under the CFPA because it “provid[ed] payments or other financial data processing services to a consumer by any technological means, including processing or storing financial or banking data for any payment instrument, or through any payment systems or network used for processing payments data.” 12 U.S.C. § 5481(5). BrightSpeed offered or provided payment processing services for personal, family, or household purposes, namely for consumers who sought to obtain antivirus software and technical support services for consumers’ home computers. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(5)(A). BrightSpeed is also “a person” subject to the relevant portions of the TSR. 16 C.F.R. §310.3(b). 7.
Defendant Kevin Howard resides in Chicago, Illinois. He is the founder, sole owner, and chief operating officer of BrightSpeed. Howard’s name appears on all state registration documents for BrightSpeed and its agreements with the banks through which it Case: 1:21-cv-01199 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/03/21 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:2
Page 4
processed payments. Howard cultivated BrightSpeed’s relationships with these banks and was deeply involved in the company’s day-to-day operations.
8.
Howard is a “covered person” under the CFPA because he “provid[ed] payments or other financial data processing services to a consumer by any technological means, including processing or storing financial or banking data for any payment instrument, or through any payment systems or network used for processing payments data.” 12 U.S.C. § 5481(5). Howard offered or provided payment processing services for personal, family, or household purposes, namely for consumers who sought to obtain antivirus software and technical-support services for their home computers. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(5)(A). Howard is a “related person” because he was the sole owner of BrightSpeed and had managerial responsibility for BrightSpeed’s affairs. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25). As a “related person,” Howard is deemed a “covered person” under the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25)(B). Howard is also “a person” subject to the relevant portions of the TSR. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b).
Factual Background Defendants’ Business 9.
Kevin Howard founded BrightSpeed in 2015. He served as the company’s sole owner and chief operating officer from its inception through its wind-up. 10.
From the outset, under Howard's leadership, BrightSpeed positioned itself as a third-party payment processor for “high-risk” telemarketing businesses. These clients, who often could not obtain payment-processing services from other payment processors because of the risk of fraud associated with their businesses, allowed Defendants to charge higher processing fees than processors with a lower risk tolerance.
Case: 1:21-cv-01199 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/03/21 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:3
Page 5
11.
From 2016 to 2018, Defendants BrightSpeed and Howard processed RCC payments for over 100 merchant-clients who purported to provide virus software and technicalsupport services, but actually scammed consumers into purchasing unnecessary and expensive computer software (“Tech-Support Clients”).
12.
In order to process payments for their Tech-Support Clients, Defendants opened and maintained RCC processing accounts with two regional banks (“Originating Banks”). 13.
Defendants maintained processing accounts at the first bank (“Bank One”) from at least January 2016 to August 2018. Defendants processed over 18,000 RCC transactions for Tech-Support Clients through Bank One, totaling more than $8 million. 14.
Defendants maintained processing accounts at the second bank (“Bank Two”) from at least January 2016 to July 2019. Defendants processed over 150,000 RCC transactions for Tech-Support Clients through Bank Two, totaling more than $63 million. 15.
Beginning in the summer of 2018, the Originating Banks terminated their relationships with the Defendants. Bank One began winding down its relationship with Defendants in August 2018 as a result of an internal investigation. Defendants then moved their remaining active merchant accounts to Bank Two, where they had an existing processing relationship. In June 2019, Bank Two also terminated its relationship with Defendants due to the excessive risk posed by their Tech-Support Clients’ accounts. Fraudulent Technical Support Scheme 16.
Defendants’ Tech-Support Clients typically targeted consumers using pop-up advertisements, indicating that their computers were running slowly, infected by viruses, or were experiencing some other serious technical problem. The pop-up advertisements provided consumers with a telephone number to call for assistance. Case: 1:21-cv-01199 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/03/21 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:4
Page 6
17.
To appear more trustworthy, the Tech-Support Clients sometimes claimed to be affiliated with well-known technology companies like Microsoft or Symantec, but they were not affiliated with those entities.
18.
If a consumer called the number, the Tech-Support Clients would typically offer services to clean or remove viruses from the consumer’s computer at a steep price, sometimes as high as $2,000. When they succeeded in persuading a consumer, often an older American, to purchase their antivirus software or technical support services, Defendants’ Tech-Support Clients requested payment by asking the consumer to verbally authorize an RCC and provide their name, address, bank account number, and bank routing number.
19.
After obtaining authorization for payment by RCC, the Tech-Support Clients typically downloaded antivirus software, software that was sometimes available to the public for free or at a low-cost, onto the consumer’s computer. These tools were frequently duplicative of software the consumer already had on his or her computer. 20.
A significant number of consumers who initially authorized a transaction realized that they had been defrauded after speaking with family or friends and discovering that the software they purchased was unnecessary, ineffective, freely available, or duplicative of what they already had.
Indicia of Fraud 21.
Due to their role as payment processors, Defendants knew or should have known that their Tech-Support Clients were obtaining payment for antivirus software and technical support services using RCCs. In fact, BrightSpeed’s “Pre-Application Qualifying Questions,” which Kevin Howard was responsible for reviewing and approving, specifically asked “what verticals do you operate in?” It also inquired about the Tech-Support Client’s call center Case: 1:21-cv-01199 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/03/21 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:5
Page 7
operations. Defendants also knew that their Tech-Support Clients offered and sold these products and services over the telephone on interstate calls initiated by consumers who viewed the Tech- Support Clients’ pop-up or other internet ads.
22.
Defendants were also aware of nearly a thousand consumer complaints about their Tech-Support Clients. Between 2016 and 2018, Defendants received almost 1,000 consumer complaints regarding transactions that they processed, and the majority of these complaints resulted in refunds or cancellations. Approximately 25% of these complaints specifically complained that the transaction was fraudulent or unauthorized and described scenarios nearly identical to those in public service announcements published by the FBI Internet Crime Center in 2014 (available at http://www.ic3.gov/media/2014/141113.aspx) and updated in 2016 (available at http://www.ic3.gov/media/2016/160602.aspx).
23.
Consumers made many of these complaints directly to Defendants. For at least 18 months, Defendants emailed transaction receipts to consumers on behalf of their Tech-Support Clients and consumers’ responses came directly to Defendants. Defendants would then investigate issues consumers complained about in their responses and respond to the consumer. Further, starting around July 2016, Defendants began including BrightSpeed’s phone number (instead of their clients’) on the receipts so that BrightSpeed could field calls from dissatisfied customers.
24.
Complaining consumers specifically mentioned the pop-up advertisements that claimed that there were problems with their computers. They complained that the Tech-Support Clients had falsely represented that they were affiliated with established companies such as Microsoft and Symantec.
Case: 1:21-cv-01199 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/03/21 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:6
Page 8
25.
Consumers also complained that the Tech-Support Clients created a false sense of urgency and that they were pressured and duped into purchasing unnecessary and expensive antivirus software and tech-support services from the Tech-Support Clients. Some consumers also indicated that they were contacting their local police departments or other regulatory bodies. 26.
Howard and BrightSpeed also responded to inquiries from multiple police departments across the country, ranging from New York to Colorado, about police reports filed by consumers who believed they had been defrauded by BrightSpeed’s Tech-Support Clients. Specifically, Howard had several conversations and exchanged emails with local police officers regarding the police reports.
Return Rates 27.
A return rate is the percentage of transactions that were processed but subsequently rejected and “returned” over a given period. Transactions may be returned for a variety of reasons. For instance, a transaction may be returned due to insufficient funds in a consumer’s account, invalid or closed accounts, or when a consumer explicitly rejects the transaction because he or she did not authorize it (known as “unauthorized” returns). An unauthorized return rate is a subset of the overall return rate where the reason for the return provided by the consumer is that the transaction was unauthorized. 28.
The overall return rate for Defendants’ Tech-Support Clients averaged between 22% and 24%. The unauthorized return rate averaged 14%. 29.
By contrast, the National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA), which manages and administers the ACH network, an analogous payment platform, has set a limit of 15% as the maximum return rate for a legitimate business and a network-wide return rate Case: 1:21-cv-01199 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/03/21 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:7
Page 9
threshold of 0.5% for unauthorized ACH transactions. NACHA’s rules require network participants to report and investigate any merchant with an unauthorized return rate above 0.5%. 30.
Despite the numerous indicators of fraudulent activity by their Tech-Support Clients, Defendants turned a blind eye and continued to facilitate their conduct. Warnings from Originating Banks 31.
The Originating Banks repeatedly expressed concern to Defendants about the nature and volume of the complaints that consumers lodged against the Tech-Support Clients. 32.
For example, in July 2016, one of the Originating Banks contacted Defendant Howard about a complaint it received, writing:
Kevin, it’s the same story. Their customer…. received a pop-up on her computer that she had a virus with a phone number to call. When she called, they requested access to her computer, laptop, and iPad and ask[ed] for $1,200 to fix the problem. This was [Client A] again. 33.
Defendants made false and misleading statements to their Originating Banks about the degree to which they vetted their Tech-Support Clients, the nature of their business relationships with their Tech-Support Clients, and the degree to which they monitored their transactions. For example:
a. Defendants told Bank One that they requested and reviewed six months of bank statements, conducted a personal credit check, criminal background check, and pulled a Dun & Bradstreet report for each potential Tech-Support Client. These representations were false.
b. Defendants told Bank Two that BrightSpeed was not a third-party payment processor in order to avoid running afoul of the bank’s policy against working Case: 1:21-cv-01199 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/03/21 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:8
Page 10
with such processors and later told Bank One that it had a franchise arrangement with its Tech-Support Clients. Neither of these statements was true. c. Defendants told Bank One that BrightSpeed called all consumers for whom it processed RCC transactions within two hours. This was not true. d. Defendant Howard also told Bank One that he had a “personal threshold” of 4% for returns and once his clients reached that percentage, he would terminate them. This statement also was not true.
34.
Defendants’ false and misleading statements were meant to assuage the Originating Banks’ concerns about their Tech-Support Clients’ high return rates and the complaints about those clients.
Defendants’ Vetting and Oversight of the Tech-Support Clients 35.
Defendants failed to put reasonable controls in place to meaningfully vet their Tech-Support Clients. Defendants often did not require that the Tech-Support Clients produce documentation demonstrating that they were legitimate businesses. In some cases, Defendants only required a Tech-Support Client to complete a processing service agreement with BrightSpeed to begin processing payments for the client. In other instances, Defendants only collected generic documents, such as blank stock certificates, corporate resolutions, or a copy of the client contact’s driver’s license, in support of the Tech-Support Clients’ applications. Defendants did not require or receive any documentation that would allow them to assess the nature of the Tech-Support Clients’ businesses, the level of risk they posed to consumers, or the likelihood that they would engage in fraud.
Case: 1:21-cv-01199 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/03/21 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:9
Page 11
36.
Defendants also failed to monitor and promptly suspend bad actors among its Tech-Support Clients after learning that they were likely defrauding consumers or engaging in other illegal activity.
37.
When a consumer complained or a bank questioned a transaction, Defendants routinely refunded the consumer. Defendants typically refunded complaining consumers’ payments either by directly transmitting the funds or authorizing a return by the bank. Defendants rarely investigated the disputed transaction. 38.
In some instances, in response to receiving a consumer complaint, Defendants requested and reviewed proof of authorization from the Tech-Support Client that initiated the transaction. This proof came in the form of an audio recording from the Tech-Support Client’s sales call with the consumer.
39.
These recordings did not encompass the entire conversation. Rather they were excerpts of the consumer reading one line of text provided by the Tech-Support Client. The text included the consumer’s name, the product or service purchased, the price, the name of the Tech- Support Client, and the consumer’s bank account number. 40.
The recordings offered no insight into the communications that led to the sale— that is, what the consumer was told was wrong with her computer or what the products or services would accomplish; whether the Tech-Support Client claimed affiliation with companies like Microsoft or Symantec; or any other details that complaining consumers frequently mentioned.
41.
Defendants continued to do business with, and earn processing fees from, Tech- Support Clients for months and sometimes years after they knew or should have known that the clients likely were engaging in fraudulent activity.
Case: 1:21-cv-01199 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/03/21 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:10
Page 12
COUNT I Violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule and the Consumer Financial Protection Act (Defendants BrightSpeed and Howard)
42.
The allegations in paragraphs 1 to 41 are incorporated herein by reference. 43.
Under the TSR, a “telemarketer” means any person who, in connection with telemarketing, initiates or receives telephone calls to or from a customer or donor and “telemarketing” means a plan, program, or campaign which is conducted to induce the purchase of goods or services by use of one or more telephones and which involves more than one interstate telephone call. 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(ff) and (gg). 44.
It is a violation of the TSR for any seller or telemarketer to create or cause to be created, directly or indirectly, a remotely created payment order, including an RCC, as payment for goods or services offered or sold through telemarketing. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(9). 45.
The TSR also prohibits a person from providing substantial assistance or support to any seller or telemarketer when that person “knows or consciously avoids knowing” that the seller or telemarketer is engaged in any act or practice that violates Section 310.4. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b).
46.
Defendants BrightSpeed and Howard knew or consciously avoided knowing that their Tech-Support Clients were creating or causing to be created RCCs as payment for services that they offered and sold through telemarketing. 47.
Despite this knowledge, Defendants BrightSpeed and Howard provided substantial assistance and support to their Tech-Support Clients by: a. opening and maintaining processing accounts for the purpose of processing RCC payments for them;
Case: 1:21-cv-01199 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/03/21 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:11
Page 13
b. processing their RCC transactions to allow them to draw funds from consumers’ accounts;
c. making misrepresentations to the Originating Banks in order to prolong their ability to process RCCs for their Tech-Support Clients; and d. failing to timely terminate their processing relationships with their Tech-Support Clients after learning of their illegal and fraudulent conduct. 48.
Defendants’ actions violate Section 310.3(b) of the TSR. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b). 49.
Defendants’ violations of the TSR constitute violations of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531(a), 5536(a)(1); 15 U.S.C. § 6102(c)(2).
COUNT II Unfair Acts and Practices (Defendants BrightSpeed and Howard)
50.
The allegations in paragraphs 1 to 41 are incorporated herein by reference. 51.
Under § 1031(c)(1) of the CFPA, an act or practice is unfair when: (1) it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers; (2) which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers; and (3) such substantial injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.
52.
Defendants’ acts and practices caused substantial injury because they processed the payments of hundreds of consumers who were defrauded into purchasing unnecessary software and services. Defendants continued to process payments for their Tech-Support Clients when they knew or should have known the clients were engaged in fraud. By June 2016, Defendants also knew that their Tech-Support Clients were violating the TSR’s bar on using RCCs for telemarketing transactions. Consumers also spent substantial time attempting to get refunds, including in some cases filing police reports. Case: 1:21-cv-01199 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/03/21 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:12
Page 14
53.
Consumers’ injuries were not reasonably avoidable because Defendants’ Tech- Support Clients misled consumers about their need for software and services, the condition of their computers, and their affiliation with prominent technology companies. 54.
Neither consumers nor competition experienced countervailing benefits from Defendants’ processing of payments for Tech-Support Clients despite knowing, or having reason to know, that they were defrauding consumers. Processing payments for unnecessary or unauthorized services, or where the payments were obtained in an illegal manner, resulted in substantial injury that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits. DEMAND FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Bureau requests that the Court: 1.
prohibit Defendants from participating in any way in the business of payment processing;
2.
permanently enjoin Defendants from committing future violations of the CFPA, TSR, or any provision of “Federal consumer financial law,” as defined by 12 U.S.C. § 5481(14);
3.
grant additional injunctive relief as the Court may deem just and proper; 4.
award damages or other monetary relief against Defendants; 5.
order Defendants to pay redress to consumers harmed by its unlawful conduct;
6.
order Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains; 7.
impose on Defendants a civil money penalty; 8.
order Defendants to pay the Bureau’s costs and fees incurred in connection with prosecuting this action; and Case: 1:21-cv-01199 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/03/21 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:13
Page 15
9.
award additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper.
Dated: March 3, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
Cara Petersen Acting Enforcement Director John C. Wells Deputy Enforcement Director Richa Dasgupta Assistant Litigation Deputy
s/ Tianna Baez
Tianna Baez (New York Bar No. 4808598) Telephone: (202) 435-9454 Email: [email protected]
Christian Woolley (Pennsylvania Bar No. 205486) Telephone: (202) 435-9189
Email: [email protected]
1700 G Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20552
Attorneys for Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Case: 1:21-cv-01199 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/03/21 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:14
Order ()
PDF of this document (22 pages)
Page 16
Oo YF SN DN mH HP WD HO Re
NB bo BD BNO BH HO NY KN NYO HS RRR RR pw Oo ~~ DO A BP WO HY YK CO KO Bn DB A BP WYO YP KY DS
GORGE 112A 1 CU MELAS AGEING i Ar ITH Ad 09 Hb H22R Agel LhphapRagRirii 460
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Consumer Financial Protection Case No. 1:21-cv-01199
Bureau, Plaintiff, STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND Vv. ORDER
BrightSpeed Solutions, Inc, and
Kevin Howard, Defendants.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) commenced this civil action on March 3, 2021 to obtain injunctive and monetary relief and civil penalties, from BrightSpeed Solutions, Inc., (BrightSpeed or Corporate Defendant) and Kevin Howard (Howard or Individual Defendant) (together, Defendants). The Complaint alleges violations of sections 1031(a) and 1036(a) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531(a), 5536(a)(1)(A), and Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (Telemarketing Act), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101 et seq., and its implementing rule, the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 CFR § 310.3(b), against the Defendants in connection with their payment processing services.
The Bureau and Defendants agree to entry of this Stipulated Judgment and Order (Order), without adjudication of any issue of fact or law, to settle and
resolve all matters in dispute arising from the conduct alleged in the Complaint.
FINDINGS
Page 17
Oo DA AN DNDN Wn Fe W NH
NO NO NH LH KH BP KH KN KN wR mR RR et CO “KON UN B&B WY HO KF CO HO BAN DA FP W YH K& &D
[Illegible in the scan: 1 paragraph of unreadable text omitted. See the PDF for the original.]
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action and venue is proper in this jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), and 12 U.S.C. § 5564(£).
2, The Complaint alleges claims upon which relief may be granted.
3. Defendants waive all rights to seek judicial review or otherwise challenge or contest the validity of this Order and any claim they may have under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, concerning the prosecution of this action to the date of this Order. Each Party agrees to bear its own costs and expenses, including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees.
4. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in the Complaint, except as specified in this Order. For purposes of this Order, Defendants admit the facts necessary to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over them and the subject matter of this action.
5. Entry of this Order is in the public interest.
DEFINITIONS
6. The following definitions apply to this Order:
a. “Affected Consumers” means the more than 130,000 consumers for whom, from January 1, 2016 to August 31, 2018, BrightSpeed processed a remotely created check to facilitate the purchase of any product or service offered or sold through telemarketing, including antivirus software or technical-support services, from one of BrightSpeed’s Merchant Clients.
b. “Assist” or “Assisting Others” includes, but is not limited to:
i. consulting in any form whatsoever;
ii. providing paralegal or administrative support services;
Page 18
Oo w~A aI DB A BP WY YN
wo NY YY NH KH NH NY HN NO RR Ee oOo ~~ ON ON Bw WH Ne CoO Oo WOH HD A HP WD YH FY S&S
[Illegible in the scan: 1 paragraph of unreadable text omitted. See the PDF for the original.]
ill.
IV.
vii.
viii.
performing customer service functions, including but not limited to, receiving or responding to consumer complaints; formulating or providing, or arranging for the formulation or provision of, any advertising or marketing material, including but not limited to, any telephone sales script, direct mail solicitation, or the text of any Internet website, email, or other electronic communication or advertisement; formulating or providing, or arranging for the formulation or provision of, any marketing support material or service, including but not limited to, web or Internet Protocol addresses or domain name registration for any Internet websites, affiliate marketing services, or media placement services;
providing names of, or assisting in the generation of, potential customers;
performing marketing, billing, or payment services of any kind; and
acting or serving as an owner, officer, director, manager, or
principal of any entity.
c. “Credit” has the same meaning as set forth in the CFPA, 12 U.S.C.
§ 5481(7). Credit means a right granted by a person to
a consumer to defer payment of a debt, incur debt and defer its
payment, or purchase property or services and defer payment for
such purchase.
d. “Consumer Financial Product or Service” has the same
meaning set forth in the Consumer Financial Protection Act of
2010, 12 U.S.C. § 5481(5).
Page 19
Oo Oo SN DN A FP W NH
moO NY NO HN BH NH KN HD KN He Rw rm RE et Co nN BN AN BR WO NY KH ODO VO DA AH HDA FP WY NY KF O&O
[Illegible in the scan: 1 paragraph of unreadable text omitted. See the PDF for the original.]
e. "Consumer Lending Activities" means: (1) granting a
consumer the right, for primarily personal, family, or household purposes, to defer payment of a debt, incur debt and defer its payment, or purchase property or services and defer payment for such purchases; and (2) purchasing accounts or debts generated as
described in subsection (1), above.
. “Defendants” means the Individual Defendant and the Corporate
Defendant.
i. “Individual Defendant” means Kevin Howard or any other name by which he might be known.
ii. “Corporate Defendant” means BrightSpeed Solutions,
Inc. and its successors and assigns.
. “Debt” has the same meaning as set for in the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5), and includes any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has
been reduced to judgment.
. “Debt Collection Activities” means all activities related to
efforts to collect a Debt, either directly or indirectly. For the purposes of this Order, Debt Collection Activities do not include the collection of debt owed personally to Defendant Kevin Howard by his friends, or family members. Debt Collection Activities also do not include the collection of debt owed by a guarantor to one of
Defendant Kevin Howard’s business interests.
Page 20
Oo CO ND A FP WY NH
mo NO NH HN BV DN DN KN NO Rw oOo sn ON On BP WOW NY! oO Oo wmAenH DA HP WY YH KF |S
Casee 1122 1cw0d. 1 99D SUUEK Hy 481 1Fibed 0211 D922 RagenphacRaanlPian ba4
i.
j.
k.
“Deposit-Taking Activity” has the same meaning set forth in the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5481(8) and includes:
i. the acceptance of deposits, maintenance of deposit accounts, or the provision of services related to the acceptance of deposits or the maintenance of deposit accounts;
ii. the acceptance of funds, the provision of other services related to the acceptance of funds, or the maintenance of member share accounts by a credit union; or
iii. the receipt of funds or the equivalent thereof, as the Bureau may determine by rule or order, received or held by a covered person (or an agent for a covered person) for the purpose of facilitating a payment or transferring funds or value of funds between a consumer and a third party.
“Effective Date” means the date on which the Order is entered by the Court on the docket.
“Enforcement Director” means the Assistant Director of the Office of Enforcement for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or his or her delegate.
“Financial Advisory Services has the same meaning set forth in the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5481(15)(viii), and includes providing services to consumers on individual financial matters or relating to proprietary financial products or services, including but not limited to (i) providing credit counseling to any consumer; and (ii) providing services to assist a consumer with debt management or debt settlement, modifying the terms of any extension of credit, or
avoiding foreclosure.
Page 21
Oo 7A ND DW Fe WH NY
wo NO bw WN KH HN KN HN HN RR RR CO nN) DH A BR WH NY KK TCO HO Bn HD A HW NYO KK OS
[Illegible in the scan: 1 paragraph of unreadable text omitted. See the PDF for the original.]
m. “Merchant Clients” means any of BrightSpeed’s clients who requested or obtained payments for antivirus software or technical-support services using remotely created checks.
n. “Payment Processing Activities” means providing a Person, directly or indirectly, with the means used to charge or debit accounts through the use of any payment mechanism, including, but not limited to, remotely created checks. Whether accomplished through the use of software or otherwise, Payment Processing includes, among other things: (a) reviewing and approving applications for Payment Processing; (b) providing the means to transmit consumer payment transaction data to acquiring banks or other financial institutions; (c) clearing, settling, or distributing consumer payments from acquiring banks or financial institutions; or (d) processing returned payments via any mechanism.
o. “Person” means an individual, partnership, company, corporation, association (incorporated or unincorporated), trust, estate, cooperative organization, or other entity.
p. “Related Consumer Action” means a private action by or on behalf of one or more consumers or an enforcement action by another governmental agency brought against Defendants based on substantially the same facts as described in the Complaint.
q. “Relevant Period” includes the period from January 1, 2016 through August 31, 2018.
r. “Telemarketing” has the same meaning as in the TSR, 16 CFR 8 310.2(gg), and includes a plan, program, or campaign which is
conducted to induce the purchase of goods or services or a
Page 22
Oo es SN DBD A BP W NHN
BM NO HO HN Bw KH BL KH RO Rm ee oOo nN DA UA wh WH NH —&§ CO Oo DAnAN KD UN FP WH NY | O&O
Gaage 1124 1c¥ 041 99D SURO HH 481 IFT Hed 091 bH22 Rage /ophe-RaaAthie $26
charitable contribution, by use of one or more telephones and
which involves more than one interstate phone call.
CONDUCT PROVISIONS I
Permanent Ban on Payment Processing, Consumer Lending,
Deposit Taking, Debt Collection, Telemarketing,
and Financial Advisory Services
IT IS ORDERED that:
7. Defendants, whether acting directly or indirectly, are permanently
restrained from:
a. Participating in or Assisting Others engaging in:
i.
il.
iii.
Iv.
Payment Processing Activities;
Consumer Lending Activities;
Deposit-Taking Activities;
Debt Collection Activities;
Telemarketing with respect to the offering or provision of any Consumer Financial Product or Service; and Advertising, marketing, offering for sale, selling, or providing
any Financial-Advisory Services.
b. Receiving any remuneration or other consideration from, holding
any ownership interest in, providing services to, or working in any
capacity for any person engaging in or assisting in, any of the
following:
1.
ii.
Payment Processing;
Consumer Lending;
Page 23
Co wan Dn Wn fF WY YN
wo NO NH NH NH DN HN HD BD RR ER RE CO KN ODO UM BR WY NY KFS CO CO DH DA FP WD YH KK &S
Gagee 1124 cv 01 BOD OS UREN HH 431 Aided 091159522 Rages ebaapagapet £27
iii. Deposit-Taking Activities;
iv. Debt Collection Activities;
v. Telemarketing with respect to any Consumer Financial Product or Service; and vi. Advertising, marketing, offering for sale, selling, or providing
any Financial-Advisory Services.
Nothing in this Order shall be read as an exception to this Paragraph. II Customer Information IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
8. Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys and all other Persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who receive actual notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, may not:
a. disclose, use, or benefit from consumer information, including the name, address, telephone number, email address, social security number, other identifying information, or any data that enables access to a consumer’s account (including bank account, or other financial account), of any person that Defendants or any Merchant Client obtained prior to the Effective Date in connection with the processing of payments; or
b. attempt to collect, sell, assign, or otherwise transfer any right to collect payment from any consumer who purchased or agreed to purchase antivirus software or technical-support services from
Defendants’ Merchant Clients.
Page 24
oOo ~A ND Wn FP W NHN
wo NH NH NY KN NY YN DN NO we RR Re Re RE RO Oo ~~) DA Uw BB WwW NYO KF ODO OO Wn DH HA BPW NY KY O&O
Qasee 1122 7c¥041 99D GUNG HY 4841p Med 0911 BR22 -Rageot,ph2zpRag al #i bas
However, customer information may be disclosed if requested by a
government agency or required by law, regulation, or court order.
MONETARY PROVISIONS III Order to Pay Redress IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
9. Ajudgment for monetary relief and damages is entered in favor of the Bureau and against Defendants in the amount of fifty-four million dollars ($54,000,000), representing the total amount of payments processed by Defendants for consumer transactions involving purported services to be provided by Merchant Clients that have not yet been refunded, as alleged in the Complaint in this action. However, based on sworn financial statements and supporting documentation that Defendants submitted to the Bureau and Defendants’ inability to pay the judgment for monetary relief, full payment of this judgment will be suspended upon satisfaction of the obligations in Sections V and VI and will be subject to Section IV of this Order.
IV Effect of Misrepresentation or Omission Regarding Financial Condition IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
10. The suspension of the monetary judgment entered in Section III of this Order and the Bureau’s agreement to enter into this Order are expressly premised on the truthfulness, accuracy, and completeness of Defendants’ sworn financial statements and supporting documents that were submitted to the
Bureau on or about January 28, 2021, February 4, 2021, February 16, 2021, and
Page 25
oO Oo NHN UO KRW NH
NM NO BH KH KO HN WY NO HNO Re Rm rR RR RE Oo I DB NA BW NY KF OD OBO Wma DA HP WY NY YK S&S
Cagge 1124 1cu0d L99C OG HIMROH HH 481 IAT led 091449522-Rage bQeb22-RagaiPi £29
June 28, 2021, October 7, 2021, and November 30, 2021, which Defendants assert are truthful, accurate, and complete.
11. If upon motion by the Bureau, the Court determines that Defendants have failed to disclose any material asset or that any of the Defendants’ financial statements or supporting documents contain any material misrepresentation or omission, including materially misstating the value of any asset, then the Court shall terminate the suspension of the monetary judgment entered in Section III, and without further adjudication, shall reinstate the monetary judgment entered in Section III of this Order, and the full judgment of $54 million dollars ($54,000,000) shall be immediately due and payable.
12. Ifthe Court terminates the suspension of the monetary judgment under this Section, the Bureau will be entitled to interest on the judgment, computed from the date of entry of this Consent Order, at the rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961, as amended, on any outstanding amounts not paid.
13. Provided, however, that in all other respects this Order shall remain in full force and effect unless otherwise ordered by the Court; and, provided further, that proceedings instituted under this provision would be in addition to, and not in lieu of any other civil or criminal remedies as may be provided by law, including any other proceedings that the Bureau may initiate to enforce this
Order.
V Order to Pay Civil Money Penalty IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
14. Under Section 1055(c) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5565(c), by reason of
the violations of law alleged in the Complaint and continuing until the Effective
Page 26
Oo Ce NH nH KRW NF
MO ho NH HN KH NO RO DO RO RR Re oO ~~ HN UN BP WH NY KF COS CO Wma HK UH FP Ww YH KK O&O
Gagge 1124 1c¥ 0d L 29D oc ERA HY 491 IAF ded 09 119/22-Rage 4 1,9h22-RagaipeH £80
Date, and taking into account the factors in 12 U.S.C. § 5565(c)(3), including Defendants’ financial resources, as set forth in sworn financial statements and supporting documentation that Defendants submitted to the Bureau, and Defendants’ inability to pay a greater penalty, Individual Defendant must pay a civil money penalty of $500,000 to the Bureau (the CMP).
15. | Within 10 days of the Effective Date, the Individual Defendant must pay the CMP by wire transfer to the Bureau or to the Bureau’s agent in compliance with the Bureau’s wiring instructions, in satisfaction of the CMP referenced in Paragraph 14 of this Section.
16. The CMP paid under this Order will be deposited in the Civil Penalty Fund of the Bureau as required by Section 1017(d) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5497(d).
17. Defendants must treat the civil money penalty paid under this Order as a penalty paid to the government for all purposes. Regardless of how the Bureau ultimately uses those funds, Defendants may not:
a. Claim, assert, or apply for a tax deduction, tax credit, or any other tax benefit for any civil money penalty paid under this Order; or
b. Seek or accept, directly or indirectly, reimbursement or indemnification from any source, including but not limited to payment made under any insurance policy, with regard to any civil
money penalty paid under this Order.
18. Defendants agree that the CMP imposed by the Order represents a civil penalty owed to the United States Government, is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss, and, thus, as to the Individual Defendant, it is not subject
to discharge under the Bankruptcy Code under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).
Page 27
oOo ~7~ SN DA BP WY YN
ND NH NH KH KH PO KH KO KN RR oo ee oOo ~~ DN UT BR WH NYO KY CO CO ~ HIT DH A HP WY NH KY OS
[Illegible in the scan: 1 paragraph of unreadable text omitted. See the PDF for the original.]
VI Additional Monetary Provisions IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
19. Inthe event of any default on the Defendants’ obligation to make payment under this Order, interest, computed under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, as amended, will accrue on any outstanding amounts not paid from the date of default to the date of payment, and will immediately become due and payable.
20. Defendants relinquish all dominion, control, and title to the funds paid under this Order to the fullest extent permitted by law and no part of the funds may be returned to Defendants.
21. The facts alleged in the Complaint will be taken as true and be given collateral estoppel effect, without further proof, in any proceeding based on the entry of the Order, or in any subsequent civil litigation by or on behalf of the Bureau, including in a proceeding to enforce its rights to any payment or monetary judgment under this Order, such as a nondischargeability complaint in any bankruptcy case.
22. The facts alleged in the Complaint establish all elements necessary to sustain an action by the Bureau under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), and for such purposes this Order will have collateral estoppel effect against each Defendant, even in such Defendant’s capacity as debtor-in-possession.
23, Under 31 U.S.C. § 7701, Defendants, unless they already have done so, must furnish to the Bureau their taxpayer-identification numbers, which may be used for purposes of collecting and reporting on any delinquent amount arising out of this Order.
24. Within 30 days of the entry of a final judgment, order, or settlement
in a Related Consumer Action, Defendants must notify the Enforcement Director
Page 28
Oo OO NHN DH WwW HR W NH
mM NO HO HN KH KH KN KN KN He Re Re rR RR Re Re ee Co ~) ON th BR WH NO KF ODO CO OND DH A He WD NH K CO
[Illegible in the scan: 1 paragraph of unreadable text omitted. See the PDF for the original.]
of the final judgment, order, or settlement in writing. That notification must indicate the amount of redress, if any, that Defendants paid or are required to pay to consumers and describe the consumers or classes of consumers to whom that redress has been or will be paid. To preserve the deterrent effect of the civil money penalty in any Related Consumer Action, Defendants may not argue that Defendants are entitled to, nor may Defendants benefit by, any offset or
reduction of any monetary remedies imposed in the Related Consumer Action because of the civil money penalty paid in this action or because of any payment that the Bureau makes from the Civil Penalty Fund.
25. Ifthe court in any Related Consumer Action offsets or otherwise reduces the amount of compensatory monetary remedies imposed against Defendants based on the civil money penalty paid in this action or based on any payment that the Bureau makes from the Civil Penalty Fund, Defendants must, within 30 days after entry of a final order granting such offset or reduction, notify the Bureau and pay the amount of the offset or reduction to the U.S. Treasury. Such a payment will not be considered an additional civil money penalty and will not change the amount of the civil money penalty imposed in this action.
26. Upon written request of a representative of the Bureau, any consumer reporting agency must furnish consumer reports to the Bureau concerning Individual Defendant under Section 604(a)(1) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
15 U.S.C.§ 1681] b(a)(1), which may be used for purposes of collecting and
reporting on any delinquent amount arising out of this Order.
COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS Vil Reporting Requirements IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
Page 29
Co mA nN DN RW NY
NM bh bh Bw KH NY WN KN NO HR Re Ree Re Ee Ee Re oR CoO nN DH A BR WH NY FP CO KO AH DAH HP WO NY KY ©
Cases 1124 icv. 1 99D GUE HH 4841 Aied 02H bR22 Rage LA. phazpragas £33
27, For 25years from the Effective Date, Defendants must notify the Bureau of any development that may affect compliance obligations arising under this Order, including but not limited to, a dissolution, assignment, sale, merger, or other action that would result in the emergence of a successor company; the creation or dissolution of a subsidiary, parent, or affiliate that engages in any acts or practices subject to this Order; the filing of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding by or against Defendants; or a change in Defendants’ name or address. Defendants must provide this notice at least 30 days before the development or as soon as practicable after learning about the development, whichever is sooner.
28. Within 7 days of the Effective Date, each Defendant must:
a. Designate at least one telephone number and email, physical, and postal addresses as points of contact that the Bureau may use to communicate with Defendants;
b. Identify all businesses for which Defendants are the majority owner, or that Defendants directly or indirectly controls, by their names, telephone numbers, and physical, postal, email, and Internet addresses;
c. Describe the activities of each such business, including the products and services offered, and the means of advertising, marketing, and sales;
d. Identify Individual Defendant’s telephone numbers and all email, Internet, physical, and postal addresses, including all residences; and
e. Describe in detail Individual Defendant’s involvement in any business for which he performs services in any capacity or which
he wholly or partially owns, including Individual Defendant’s title,
Page 30
oO OND nA FP WN
Bo bh BR KH KH KO KO HN KN Bm Ss i a Co nF ON UO BR RHO NO SF Uc OUlUlUlUCCOClUlUwOlLUwNLS ODO DRO DN Dl Cl
Cagge 1124 1c¥ 0d 1 99d GEIR HH 491 Aided 09 115922 Rage EX pha2Rageat a b34
role, responsibilities, participation, authority, control, and ownership.
29. Defendants must report any change in the information required to be submitted under Paragraph 27 at least 30 days before the change or as soon as practicable after learning about the change, whichever is sooner.
30. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, and again one year after the Effective Date each Defendant must submit to the Enforcement Director an accurate written compliance progress report sworn to under penalty of perjury (Compliance Report), which, at a minimum:
a. Lists each applicable paragraph and subparagraph of the Order and describes in detail the manner and form in which each Defendant has complied with each such paragraph and subparagraph of this Order; and
b. Attaches a copy of each Order Acknowledgment obtained under
Section VIII, unless previously submitted to the Bureau.
Vill Order Distribution and Acknowledgment IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that,
31. Within 7 days of the Effective Date, each Defendant must submit to the Enforcement Director an acknowledgment of receipt of this Order, sworn under penalty of perjury.
32, Within 30 days of the Effective Date, Corporate Defendant and Individual Defendant, for any business for which they are the majority owner or which they directly or indirectly control, must deliver a copy of this Order to each
of their board members and executive officers as well as to any managers,
Page 31
Oo Oo IN HD HH He WH LH KF
NM NO NO NH LO HN BP KN HNO RR mR RE et oOo sSNA OT BR W NY K& CS HO DOmnt DB AH HW NY || OS
[Illegible in the scan: 1 paragraph of unreadable text omitted. See the PDF for the original.]
employees, service providers, or other agents and representatives who have responsibilities related to the subject matter of the Order.
33. For 10years from the Effective Date, Corporate Defendant and Individual Defendant, for any business for which they are the majority owner or which they directly or indirectly control, must deliver a copy of this Order to any business entity resulting from any change in structure referred to in Paragraph 26, any future board members and executive officers, as well as to any managers, employees, or other agents and representatives who will have responsibilities related to the subject matter of the Order before they assume their responsibilities.
34. Defendants must secure a signed and dated statement acknowledging receipt of a copy of this Order, ensuring that any electronic signatures comply with the requirements of the E-Sign Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7001-7006, within 30 days of delivery, from all persons receiving a copy of this Order under this Section.
35. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, Defendants must provide the Bureau with a list of all persons and their titles to whom this Order was delivered through that date under Paragraphs 32 and 33 and a copy of all signed and dated statements acknowledging receipt of this Order under Paragraph 34.
36. Should Corporate Defendants seek to transfer or assign all or part of their operations that are subject to this Order, Corporate Defendants must, as a condition of sale, obtain the written agreement of the transferee or assignee to
comply with all applicable provisions of this Order.
Vill Recordkeeping IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
37. Individual Defendant must create, for at least 10 years from the
Page 32
oOo > aT DB UW HP W NH KF
Dh PO DP HN HO KH HN KH KR RR RB Re Be Re et Co ~T OO OO BR DH NYO K& CO CO wmO HSH HR A Se WW HY | ©
Qaase 1124 1cw0d1 29D OGuORREN HH 45s IF bed 0011 b9722 Rage f /ophacaaaatD#H E36
Effective Date, the following business records for any business for which Individual Defendant, individually or collectively with the Corporate Defendant, is a majority owner or which he directly or indirectly controls:
a. All documents and records necessary to demonstrate full compliance with each provision of this Order, including all submissions to the Bureau.
Defendants must retain these documents for at least 10 years after creation and make them available to the Bureau upon the Bureau’s request.
38. Defendants must maintain, for at least 10 years from the Effective Date or 10 years after creation, whichever is longer:
a. For each individual Affected Consumer and his or her purchase of antivirus software or technical-support services from the Defendants’ Merchant Clients: the consumer’s name, address, phone number, email address, amount paid, description of the service purchased, and, if applicable, the date and reason the consumer cancelled his or her subscription to the service;
b. For any consumer purchase of antivirus software or technicalsupport services from any Merchant Client, accounting records showing the gross and net revenues Defendants generated as payment processors; and
c. All consumer complaints and refund requests (whether received directly or indirectly, such as through a third party), and any responses to those complaints or requests.
Defendants must make these materials available to the Bureau upon the Bureau’s request.
IX
Notices
Page 33
oC CO ND HA PW WN
NM HO Bw HO BH KN HP HD DN wm we oOo ~~ DW MW BP WH NO KK CO UO WA ITD HR A HP WY NHN KF OS
Qasee 1124 cud 1 29 OGHUGEN HH 481 IATHed 02 1159424 Rage bh eb2z-RagetDh 37
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
39. Unless otherwise directed in writing by the Bureau, Defendants must provide all submissions, requests, communications, or other documents relating to this Order in writing, with the subject line, “CFPB v. BrightSpeed Solutions, Inc. and Kevin Howard, Case No. 1:21-cv-01199,” and send them by overnight courier or first-class mail to the below address and contemporaneously by email
Assistant Director for Enforcement Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection ATTENTION: Office of Enforcement 1700 G Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20552
X Cooperation with the Bureau IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
40. Defendants must cooperate fully to help the Bureau determine the identity and location of, and the amount of injury sustained by, each Affected Consumer. Defendants must provide such information in their or their agents’ possession or control within 14 days of receiving a written request from the Bureau.
XI Compliance Monitoring IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to monitor Defendants’ compliance with this Order including the financial representations upon which the judgment was
suspended:
Page 34
Oo Oo SI Hn On eR WD NY
NO NO NO BP NH DH NH NY NO RR Ree Re Re Ke Se eS oOo ~I DAN mA BP WH NY KF OD ODO DWH DH UV HR WH YN KF O&O
Cases 1124 1cuy0d 29D peur HH 481 Aided 00119422 Rage br ebazragaiPH Gas
41. Within 14 days of receipt of a written request from the Bureau, Defendants must submit additional compliance reports or other requested information which must be sworn under penalty of perjury; provide sworn testimony; or produce documents.
42. For purposes of this Section, the Bureau may communicate directly with Defendants, unless Defendants retain counsel related to these communications.
43. Defendants must permit Bureau representatives to interview any employee or other person affiliated with Defendants who has agreed to such an
interview. The person interviewed may have counsel present.
44. Nothing in this Order will limit the Bureau’s lawful use of compulsory
process, under 12 C.F.R. § 1080.6.
XIII Retention of Jurisdiction IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
45. The Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of enforcing this Order.
XIV Service IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
46. This Order may be served upon Defendants by electronic mail, certified mail, or United Parcel Service, either by the United States Marshal, the
Clerk of the Court, or any representative or agent of the Bureau.
Page 35
Oo fF NAD OH BP W HK
DO dh NO NH HN HNO YO KN RR RR ee oOo ~~ DN HA BW NY KS CO ODO Bn DH A HBP WY YN KF OC
Caage 1124 1c¥01 29AosuMRAn HH ASAT hed 02 115922 RagereQeh22ragetDu £39
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this ST: ‘tay of feos , 2022.
Mhul lata te [ie Hongrable Jghn’ J. Tharp Jr.
nited States District Judge
Page 36
Oo fe NO HH fF WD NY
NY BO DB WH NY NHN HN HO NO Hw wR RR] RR RR RRS eo DA A FB WOW NY KF CO OO RAND A S&P W NY KK OC
Cagee11221c¥ 041 29 Dosumenh tt 4811Aied 0014 b9422 Rager4 1 phazRagriDyt 60
Dated: January 18, 2022
So Stipulated and Agreed:
Tianna Baez
Christian Woolley
Samuel Taxy
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Attorneys for Plaintiff
- AND-
Page 37
Oo ceo Yan Wm BP WH HO ee
a i rd
Kevin Howard BrightSpeed Solutions, Inc, Defendant Defendant