$140m against a timeshare exit operation that took $90m from older adults
A federal court granted summary judgment in April 2026 against Christopher Carroll, president and CEO of Square One Group, ordering $140 million and permanently banning him from timeshare exit services. The FTC alleged the scheme defrauded consumers — mostly older adults — of more than $90 million by claiming they could not exit their timeshares without paying its fees.
- Year
- 2026
- Where
- United States
- Outcome
- Settled
- Reported loss
- $90.0 million
- Victims
- Not stated in the sources
- Schemes
- Timeshare exit and resale scams
- Last reviewed
- 2026-09-06
The facts, as recorded
- The FTC announced the order on 20 April 2026, following a federal court's grant of summary judgment.
- Christopher Carroll was president and CEO of Square One Group, with related entities including Consumer Law Protection, Premier Reservations Group, Resort Transfer Group and Timeshare Help Source.
- The judgment totals $140 million: $95 million in consumer redress and a $45 million civil penalty to the US Treasury.
- The FTC alleged the scheme defrauded consumers — mostly older adults — of more than $90 million.
- Defendants allegedly claimed association with timeshare companies they had no association with.
- They allegedly told consumers they could not exit their timeshares without paying the defendants' fees.
- They allegedly failed to provide promised refunds, and required consumers to sign non-cancelable contracts in violation of the FTC's Cooling-Off Rule.
- The order permanently bans Carroll from advertising, marketing, promoting or offering any timeshare exit service, and from deceptive door-to-door sales.
Why this case matters
A timeshare exit company sells escape from a contract people regret. Its customers have already made one expensive decision they wish they could undo, and are being asked to make a second one to fix it.
The FTC’s central allegation here is not that the service was poor. It is that consumers were told they could not exit their timeshares without paying these fees — a claim about the world, made to people who had no way of checking it.
What was alleged
Four practices, and each corresponds to a different way of removing the customer’s ability to reconsider.
A claimed association with timeshare companies the defendants did not have — so the pitch appeared to come from inside the industry rather than from a third party selling against it.
A claim that exit was impossible without them — which converts a discretionary purchase into a necessary one.
Refunds promised and not provided — the guarantee that makes the fee feel low-risk.
Non-cancelable contracts, in violation of the FTC’s Cooling-Off Rule, which exists precisely to give people a few days to reconsider a sale made in their own home.
The shape of the judgment
$140 million total: $95 million in consumer redress and a $45 million civil penalty payable to the Treasury — against more than $90 million the FTC says was taken.
The civil penalty is notable. Most FTC orders on this site are restitution and a ban, with the money figure heavily suspended because nothing is left. A penalty on top of full redress is a different posture, and it follows a summary judgment rather than a settlement — the court decided the facts were not genuinely in dispute.
Who it happened to
Mostly older adults, according to the FTC.
That is the recurring shape of the whole timeshare category, for a structural reason. Timeshares were sold heavily in the 1980s and 1990s, and the people now carrying maintenance fees they no longer want — on a property they may no longer be well enough to visit, with an obligation they worry will pass to their children — are in their seventies and eighties.
The exit industry exists because that problem is real. Which is exactly why a fraudulent version of it works.
Sources
- Court Orders Operator of Timeshare Exit Scheme to Pay $140 Million Related to FTC Allegations the Scheme Took Millions from Consumers. US Federal Trade Commission. Accessed 2026-09-06. Supports: The 20 April 2026 order, the defendant and entities, the $140m split into $95m redress and a $45m civil penalty, the $90m taken, the older-adult victim profile, the four alleged practices and the ban terms.