The FTC’s temporary restraining order against National Amendment Assistance, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is a textbook enforcement of the upfront-fee prohibition in 16 CFR Part 322. The MARS Rule has real teeth. The FTC just used them.
Since at least 2022, N.A.A. and related Southern California entities mailed letters to homeowners nationwide claiming affiliation with a “CARES-Act Homeowner Assistance Fund.” The pitch: a guaranteed reduction in mortgage rate and monthly payment. Defendants collected upfront fees, handed over nothing, and walked away with consumers’ financial information, adding a Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act violation on top of the MARS fraud.
The FTC complaint, docketed as case 252-3119, names certain individuals alongside related corporate entities. Beyond the fee fraud, defendants allegedly told consumers to stop making mortgage payments during a fabricated “grace period.” Under 16 CFR Part 322, a MARS provider can’t collect fees until the consumer has executed a written agreement with their loan holder or servicer. The rule couldn’t be clearer. Some consumers are now facing foreclosure or default.
The timeline is what I noticed when I read the complaint: the CARES Act mortgage forbearance program wound down in 2021, yet N.A.A. was still mailing on that branding four years later. Distressed homeowners don’t always track federal program expirations; scammers do. The MARS Rule’s pre-contract fee ban exists for exactly this pattern, but enforcement is episodic. Each TRO closes one operation; the next one refiles under a different entity name.
Worth reviewing the MARS Rule compliance guide before you draft any homeowner-assistance marketing this quarter.
Rebecca Lauren