Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: FTC wins $45.96 million default judgment over student loan debt relief servicer, (Jul 8, 2026)

By Colleen M. Svelnis, J.D.

The order permanently bars the companies from debt-relief products and telemarketing, and the funds may be used for consumer redress before unused money goes to the Treasury.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) won a default judgment in Nevada federal court imposing a $45.96 million monetary judgment and permanent injunction against Superior Servicing and related companies, including a permanent ban tied to student loan debt relief services and telemarketing. The June 26 order granted the agency’s motion and found that the companies deceived consumers into paying hundreds of dollars for student loan debt-relief services that were made up, not as described, or never materialized. The amended complaint alleged violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, Section 521 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB Act), and the FTC’s Impersonation Rule. The order gives the FTC court-ordered monetary relief and a broad injunction designed to stop future debt-relief, telemarketing, impersonation, and false statements to obtain consumer financial information (Federal Trade Commission v. Superior Servicing LLC et al, No. 2:24-cv-02163-GMN-MDC (D. Nev. Jun. 26, 2026)).

The FTC had alleged that Superior Servicing promised consumers that they could pay the companies for lower student loan payments, loan forgiveness, payment application to their loans, Department of Education affiliation, or transfer of servicing responsibility. The court found that the companies did not seek or deliver repayment plans or forgiveness, did not apply consumers’ payments to student loans, were not affiliated with the Department of Education or approved servicers, and did not take over loan servicing.

The court identified the companies as a common enterprise, finding an interrelated network with common ownership, management, business functions, employees, managers, office locations, and commingled funds. This makes each defaulting defendant liable for the acts and practices the court described, rather than limiting relief to a single named entity.

Injunction and bans. Determining there was a danger of future violations, the court entered broad fencing-in relief. The injunction permanently bars the defaulting defendants, directly or through others, from advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, selling, or assisting with any secured or unsecured debt-relief product or service. It also permanently bars them from participating in telemarketing, including by consulting, brokering, planning, investing, or advising others. The same finding supports monitoring relief designed to police compliance with the permanent injunction.

The order prohibits the companies and persons acting with them from misrepresenting affiliation, endorsement, sponsorship, approval, or connection with any person, government entity, public, nonprofit, noncommercial, or other program, and from violating the Impersonation Rule. It also prohibits using false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements to obtain consumer information, including credit or debit card numbers, bank account and routing numbers, and consumer credit reports, and bars GLB Act violations. The financial-information restriction is concrete, while the affiliation ban tracks the Impersonation Rule theory.

The court found no hearing was necessary because undisputed evidence showed $45,959,012.69 in consumer harm from violations during the three years before the FTC filed the complaint. It entered judgment for that amount in favor of the FTC, and the order permits money the agency receives to be placed in a fund for consumer relief and redress administration. If direct redress is impracticable or money remains, the FTC may use the funds for related relief and then deposit unused money in the Treasury.

Background. In December 2024, the court granted a preliminary injunction against Superior Servicing, LLC, at the request of the FTC, finding good cause to believe that, in numerous instances, in connection with the marketing, telemarketing, and sale of student loan debt relief services, the company has made false representations to consumers of its services. Later, following the filing of an amended complaint in early 2025, the FTC announced that the court entered stipulated orders for permanent injunction, monetary judgment, and other relief against Eric Caldwell and David Hernandez—as operators of Superior Servicing—resolving FTC charges that they assisted in the operation of an illegal student loan debt-relief operation.

Attorneys: Luis H. Gallegos for the FTC.

Companies: Superior Servicing LLC

News: ConsumerProtection FederalTradeCommissionNews