FTC vs. Rachel from Cardholder Services

Discussion of various forms of Advance Fee Fraud, including application fees for loans that never materialize, self-liquidating loan scams, as well as mortgage elimination scams and related debt elimination scams [Nigerian-type scams should go in the Nigerian 4-1-9 forum]
User avatar
Kestrel
Endangerer of Stupid Species
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:09 pm
Location: Hovering overhead, scanning for prey

FTC vs. Rachel from Cardholder Services

Postby Kestrel » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:38 pm

The FTC is trying to do something about the nonstop robocalls from Rachel at Cardholder Services. On November 1st the FTC announced they froze the assets of the five key companies pending further court action. The complaints were filed in Florida and Arizona. Orders freezing company assets were obtained in late October.

The FTC wrote:The Federal Trade Commission escalated its campaign against illegal, unwanted robocalls announcing that it pulled the plug on five companies based in Arizona and Florida allegedly responsible for millions of illegal pre-recorded calls from “Rachel” and others from “Cardholder Services.” State partners in Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida also took legal action against similar companies...

The Commission votes authorizing the staff to file each complaint were 5-0. The complaints were filed in the U.S. district courts listed below. In filing the complaints, the FTC seeks to permanently stop the defendants’ allegedly illegal conduct. In each case, the court granted the FTC’s request for a temporary restraining order, which halts the operations pending further court proceedings.

This action hopefully will slow down the pace of robocalls by cutting off the live operator side of the scam which was paying for the whole scheme. Some comments on other websites claim that the actual robodialing portion of the calls was outsourced elsewhere, and may still continue for now. Since November 1st I have been robodialed twice by Rachel or her minion. But since I am actively maintaining a "blocked caller" list on my cell phone, it was pleasant to see my phone just silently light up with the message "incoming caller blocked."
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein

User avatar
Cathulhu
Order of the Quatloos, Brevet First Class
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: FTC vs. Rachel from Cardholder Services

Postby Cathulhu » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:46 pm

I got one of those cardholder services robo calls last week. They've been averaging about twice a week all through October.
Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to. T. Pratchett
Always be a moving target. L.M. Bujold

User avatar
Kestrel
Endangerer of Stupid Species
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:09 pm
Location: Hovering overhead, scanning for prey

Re: FTC vs. Rachel from Cardholder Services

Postby Kestrel » Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:34 am

Since November I continued to get calls a couple of times a week. Each time I saw a new non-local call I punched the Reject button on my cell, googled the number to verify it, and added it to my Reject list.

About three weeks ago I made a mistake. I saw a call come from an area code which was one digit off from a real number I expected to call. And I said "Hello."

Since then I have gotten Card Services calls five or six days a week, up to three times a day, from one of fourteen different new numbers. Yes, Rachel is back in business. As usual, the recent FTC action only slowed her down long enough to relocate.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein

fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 2970
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: FTC vs. Rachel from Cardholder Services

Postby fortinbras » Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:27 pm

These calls continue (also "Heather from Cardholder Services") notwithstanding the FTC action. I am considering buying a 'call-zapper' that supposedly makes the robocall machine think that my phone is no longer in service and delete my number from its memory.

Once I hung on through the call, hoping to be able to tell a human that I am already on the FTC's No Calls list, but when Rachel was done, I was treated to several more robot messages without encountering a human. I gave up after about 20 minutes.

If someone will please identify Rachel for me, I will gladly beat her to death with a tire iron.

User avatar
Kestrel
Endangerer of Stupid Species
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:09 pm
Location: Hovering overhead, scanning for prey

Re: FTC vs. Rachel from Cardholder Services

Postby Kestrel » Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:09 pm

fortinbras wrote:These calls continue (also "Heather from Cardholder Services") notwithstanding the FTC action. I am considering buying a 'call-zapper' that supposedly makes the robocall machine think that my phone is no longer in service and delete my number from its memory.

Once I hung on through the call, hoping to be able to tell a human that I am already on the FTC's No Calls list, but when Rachel was done, I was treated to several more robot messages without encountering a human. I gave up after about 20 minutes.

If someone will please identify Rachel for me, I will gladly beat her to death with a tire iron.

I have continued aggressively using my phone's Reject list, and the call frequency has slowed slightly to once or twice a day. Occasionally they skip a day, usually on weekends. At least I don't get calls in the middle of the night.

I don't understand the idiocy of the whole scam. What is it that makes them think that persisting in calling from non-existent numbers will make me any more likely to fall for their scam than I was three years ago? And how do they expect to get my credit card information anyway, if "Press 1" for a live operator only results in a long string of robot messages with no person ever coming on the line? Heck, even when I used to "Press 1" and get a live operator, they frequently hung up on me as soon as I asked anything off-script.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein

LaVidaRoja
Basileus Quatlooseus
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:19 am
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Re: FTC vs. Rachel from Cardholder Services

Postby LaVidaRoja » Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:49 pm

I've gotten hung up on when I ask for the company name and address. I explain carefully that I am NOT planning on attacking the poor stooge making the call. However, clearly if anyone takes any more that about a minute and a half and isn't producing phishing material, they have orders to hang up.
Little boys who tell lies grow up to be weathermen.


Return to “Advance Fee Fraud and Mortgage & Debt Elimination”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests