Business directory listing scams

What it is

An invoice arrives at a small business, a church or a doctor’s office. It looks like a yellow-pages bill: a listing, a price of a few hundred dollars and a payment address. Nobody remembers ordering it. Sometimes there was a phone call, framed as confirming the organisation’s contact details, and someone said “yes”. Often there was nothing at all.

The FTC has brought a series of cases against operations that, it alleged, billed organisations for online directory listings, search engine optimisation or web hosting that they had never ordered. This page covers three of them, decided between 2014 and 2018, plus another whose refunds the FTC later paid out.

Every case here rests on FTC statements of what it alleged and what a court or settlement produced. Most ended in settlements or default judgments, not trials, so the description of what the defendants did is the agency’s allegation, not a verdict after contested proof.

How it actually works

1. A name and a target

   An organisation is picked, often a small business, church, retirement home or medical practice, all named as targets in FTC complaints. It may already appear in a real directory, which makes the approach believable.

2. The call that “confirms” something

   Someone calls to “confirm” or “update” listing details, or says a listing is free or a renewal. In the Premium Business Pages case, the FTC alleged the call instead claimed a past-due invoice for a service the business had never ordered.

3. The invoice

   A bill arrives mimicking a directory invoice. The FTC described invoices of about $480 with a “walking fingers” logo in one case and $479.95 in another, and fees of up to $487 to “verify” or “update” information in a third.

4. The payment

   Someone in the accounts function pays, because it looks routine and the amount is small enough to wave through.

   Where it could have stopped

   Ask who ordered it. Nobody can point to an order, a signed agreement or a call log, and the FTC’s advice is that if you didn’t agree, you don’t pay. Asking for the agreement in writing is the single check that defeats this scheme.

5. The escalation

   Organisations that resist get threats. In one 2015 case, a follow-up demand of $2,385.95 warned “LAST CHANCE TO PROTECT YOUR CREDIT SCORE” and came from a supposed third-party collector. In the 2018 case, callers threatened that accounts would go to “collections” or be “red flagged”.

6. More invoices

   Some victims were allegedly called repeatedly, sometimes by what appeared to be different companies, demanding payment for additional invoices.

7. The regulator catches up

   Complaints accumulate and the FTC, sometimes with state partners, sues and obtains an order. The medical directories case generated more than 1,800 complaints; a 2018 sweep announced 24 actions at once. Repaying victims can take a year or more.

Why it works

The amount is small. A few hundred dollars is below the point where most organisations investigate, so payment is the path of least resistance.

Volunteers and busy staff pay the bills. A church treasurer or a receptionist may have no way to know what was actually ordered.

A real listing makes it credible. If the organisation already appears in a directory, a “confirmation” of its details sounds routine.

Threats create a second decision. Once an invoice has been paid, or a collector’s letter arrives, refusing feels risky even though the underlying bill was never valid.

The names change. The FTC’s 2018 case involved four trade names, so a second call from “a different company” can be the same enterprise.

Where it comes from

The FTC cases on this page involve operations based in Montreal, Canada, and in the United States.

Canadian call operations. The FTC releases read for this page describe Montreal-based defendants in the 2014, 2015 and 2013–2015 Modern Technology cases, and the 2018 case named defendants from Canada and the United States.

Domestic operations. Your Yellow Book Inc. was run from Oklahoma City, according to the FTC.

A category, not one group. The FTC’s 2018 Operation Main Street listed directory listing and advertising fraud alongside fake invoices, government imposters and unordered merchandise, as a class of business-to-business fraud.

Real cases

Red flags

• An invoice for a listing, SEO or hosting service nobody remembers ordering.
• A call “to confirm” your details that later becomes a bill.
• A “free” listing or a “renewal” that turns out to carry a fee.
• Yellow-pages branding on a private company’s bill, such as a logo of walking fingers.
• Threats of “collections”, a “red flag” or damage to your credit over a small unordered invoice.
• A “third-party collector” that appears after you resist paying.
• Repeated calls from what seem like different companies about more invoices.

If it’s happening to you

Do not pay an invoice until someone can show you what was ordered.

1. Ask who authorised it. Check with everyone who could have agreed, and ask the sender for the agreement, a call recording or a signed order.
2. Don’t pay under threat. A demand of “collections” or a credit “red flag” for something you never ordered is a pressure tactic, and the FTC’s advice is that if you didn’t agree, you don’t pay.
3. Brief your staff. The FTC urges small businesses to educate employees about these tactics, since the person answering the phone is often the target.
4. If you paid, ask your bank or card issuer whether the charge can be disputed, and keep the invoice, envelope and notes.
5. Report it at reportfraud.ftc.gov. See where to report for other countries.
6. Watch for a refund notice. The FTC has mailed refund checks in past directory cases; it never requires payment or personal information before a refund check can be cashed.

Where the money goes

The FTC releases read for this page describe the money in terms of judgments and refunds, not a traced laundering route, so this page does not describe one.

In the 2014 Montreal settlement, defendants agreed to reimburse $1.7 million, and Your Yellow Book Inc. and its owners surrendered assets under a $715,476 judgment. In March 2015 a $3,081,969 judgment against one operator was suspended because of inability to pay. The 2018 default judgment exceeded $4.6 million. What victims actually got back is documented for only one case: 774 checks totalling more than $444,000 in December 2015.

By the numbers

No published dataset breaks this scheme out as its own category yet, so there is no chart to show. The data page explains which agency categories exist and why some schemes are invisible in official statistics.