$7.6m collected with threats of jail, and calls to the family
The FTC sued Global Circulation, Inc. and its owner in November 2024 over allegations that it collected more than $7.6 million in bogus debt by threatening consumers with jail, calling their relatives with the same threats, and failing to identify itself as a debt collector. A court froze its assets and appointed a receiver. The allegations have not been proven.
- Year
- 2024
- Where
- United States
- Outcome
- Charged — an allegation, not a conviction
- Reported loss
- $7.6 million
- Victims
- Not stated in the sources
- Schemes
- Phantom debt collection
- Last reviewed
- 2026-09-06
The facts, as recorded
- The FTC announced the action on 4 November 2024 against Global Circulation, Inc. and its owner Kenneth Redon, III.
- The FTC alleges the company tricked consumers into paying more than $7.6 million in bogus debt.
- Alleged tactics included threatening consumers with jail time, arrest, wage garnishment and lawsuits.
- The company allegedly made incessant calls, sometimes several times a day, and contacted consumers' family members with similar threats.
- It allegedly failed to identify itself as a debt collector, as the law requires.
- The FTC alleges the debts it was attempting to collect either do not exist at all, or are not debts it can legally collect.
- It operated under fictitious names including Total Mediation Solutions, Total Consumer Solutions and Consumer Impact Recovery.
- A federal court issued a temporary restraining order on 29 October 2024, freezing assets and placing the company under a court-appointed receivership.
- The charges are brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. These are allegations that have not been proven.
Why this case matters
The allegation contains a distinction worth pausing on. The FTC says the debts Global Circulation was chasing either do not exist at all, or are not debts it can legally collect.
Two different things, and the second is the more interesting one.
A debt that never existed is fabrication. A debt that exists but cannot legally be collected is something else: a real obligation that has passed its statute of limitations, or been discharged in bankruptcy, or already been paid, or was sold on so many times that nobody can prove who owns it.
That second category is the raw material of this industry. Portfolios of old, expired and disputed debts change hands cheaply precisely because they cannot be enforced — and their value to a fraudulent collector is that the person on the other end may half-remember the original obligation and assume the demand is legitimate.
The escalation to family
The tactic that separates this case is calling relatives with the same threats.
Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act a collector may contact third parties only to locate somebody, and may not discuss the debt. Calling a consumer’s family to repeat threats of jail is not a debt collection practice at all — it is pressure applied through people who have no involvement and no way to check.
It also explains the “incessant” calls, sometimes several times a day. The product being sold is relief from the calling.
The names again
Total Mediation Solutions. Total Consumer Solutions. Consumer Impact Recovery.
The same pattern as Blackstone Legal: several neutral, official-sounding trading names over one operation, so that no single name accumulates a searchable reputation.
Why “failed to identify itself” is a real charge
It sounds like paperwork. It is not.
A debt collector is legally required to say that it is one, and to send a written validation notice setting out the debt and the consumer’s right to dispute it. That notice is the mechanism by which a person can demand proof — and demanding proof is the single action that ends a phantom debt.
An operation that never identifies itself as a collector never triggers the obligation to prove anything. Skipping the disclosure is not an oversight; it removes the consumer’s only lever.
The caveat
These are allegations. The FTC files a complaint when it has reason to believe a defendant is violating or is about to violate the law, and the case is decided by the court.
Sources
- FTC Takes Action Against Phantom Debt Collector That Collected Millions In Bogus Debt From Consumers. US Federal Trade Commission. Accessed 2026-09-06. Supports: The 4 November 2024 action, the defendants, the $7.6m, the jail and garnishment threats, the calls to family members, the failure to identify as a collector, the fictitious names, the 29 October 2024 restraining order and receivership, and the FDCPA charge.
- FTC to Ban Debt Collector Who Allegedly Coerced Consumers into Paying Debt They Didn't Owe. US Federal Trade Commission. Accessed 2026-09-06. Supports: The FTC's subsequent action in the same enforcement line.