The Federal Trade Commission alleges that Nuvei and its subsidiaries helped the Reimage tech support operation spread out its chargebacks, hide its operators, and keep taking card payments, even after Visa, Mastercard, Microsoft, and the company’s own underwriters raised alarms. Such ethical behavior done by this company.
Allegations and agreed orderTL;DR
- The FTC alleges that Nuvei entities processed more than $30 million in card payments for Reimage, an offshore tech support operation, between 2017 and 2023, while allegedly knowing it relied on fake virus alerts and deceptive telemarketing.
- According to the FTC’s complaint which I attached at the bottom of this article, consumers, older adults in particular, were scared into buying software and then remote “repair” plans that started around $300. The complaint says more than $10.6 million in those higher-priced charges was billed to U.S. consumers.
- Their complaint alleges that Nuvei spread Reimage’s transactions across many accounts so its chargeback rate stayed below the card networks’ alarm thresholds, used a Cyprus nominee director and an Isle of Man address on its applications, and kept processing after a Visa fine in 2020.
- On September 9, 2026, a federal court entered an agreed order: $4.85 million, a permanent ban on processing for telemarketed or pop-up tech support, and a ten-year compliance regime. Nuvei neither admits nor denies the allegations, and the court made no finding of wrongdoing.
- Unresolved: how many consumers were affected, how much of the money will reach them, and what Nuvei says happened.
Transparency notice. This article draws on three documents: the FTC’s complaint (Doc. 1, filed September 3, 2026), the stipulated order entered by Judge Krissa M. Lanham (Doc. 4, September 9, 2026), and the FTC’s press release of September 4, 2026. Everything described as Nuvei’s conduct, knowledge, or internal communications is an allegation by the Federal Trade Commission.
The Facts
Nuvei is a global payment processor, a company that lets businesses accept card payments. The FTC sued five entities: Nuvei Corporation, Nuvei International Group Limited, Nuvei Limited, SafeCharge Digital Limited, and Nuvei Technologies Inc. Several were formerly known as SafeCharge, a payments group Nuvei acquired around August 2019, so much of the conduct alleged for the years before 2019 concerns the SafeCharge side of the business. The complaint treats all five as a “common enterprise,” meaning each is alleged to be liable for the others’ acts.
The central allegation is about a company called Reimage (also sold as Restoro). The complaint says Reimage ran a tech support scheme from 2011 to 2023 that frightened people with fake computer virus warnings and then sold them expensive “repairs,” and that Nuvei’s entities processed its card payments for essentially that entire period.
What Consumers Allegedly Went Through
The complaint describes a script that repeated across years of consumer complaints, and it says the harm fell on U.S. consumers and “older adults in particular.”
- A pop-up warns of a problem. Users saw messages saying their computer was infected or their “Windows system is damaged,” often made to look like they came from Microsoft.
- A “free” scan confirms it. The user is directed to download diagnostic software that confirms the fake findings, then prompted to buy “repair” software costing $30 to $60.
- A phone number follows the purchase. Buyers are told to call a toll-free number for “free support.”
- A telemarketer takes over. Posing as a technician, the caller remotely accesses the computer and claims to find critical failures.
- A costly plan is sold by phone. Plans started around $300, $400, and $500. The complaint says one consumer paid $500 for the Platinum plan while another, in early 2021, paid $1,000 for the same one.
Sequence as described in paragraphs 57 to 61 of the complaint. These are the FTC’s allegations about Reimage, which the FTC separately resolved in 2024 through a stipulated order with a $26 million consumer redress judgment.
The complaint quotes complaints that reached the payment processor directly, because the processor’s name appeared on card statements. In January 2021, a consumer wrote that she believed the company could repair her computer, said it took over the machine without fixing it, and added: “I am a retired person.” Another, in December 2020, said she was charged over $2,700 for a service she called “non existent.” In April 2021, a consumer said that after paying over $500 her computer “now is inoperable.” A consumer who reported to German police said he received no service for his payment; the complaint says the report prompted a criminal investigation by German authorities.
On scale, the complaint alleges that more than 41,000 Reimage transactions processed through Reimage and SC Digital accounts, and more than 12,000 processed through a third-party intermediary called Upclick, involved U.S. consumers and U.S. issuing banks. It does not say how many separate people that represents, or how much of the money was refunded.
How the FTC Says the Processing Kept It Going
Card networks like Visa and Mastercard watch for merchants whose customers dispute many charges. A chargeback is a reversal: the customer’s bank takes the money back from the merchant’s bank. The chargeback rate is the share of a merchant’s transactions that get reversed. Under the networks’ programs, as the complaint describes them, crossing roughly 1% along with a set number of chargebacks (100 or 150 a month) triggers monitoring, fines, and possible termination.
The complaint alleges three ways Nuvei helped Reimage stay below those lines.
Spreading the chargebacks
The complaint calls this “load balancing”: splitting one merchant’s sales across many accounts so no single account crosses a threshold. It alleges that in May 2017, when an employee worried about onboarding Reimage, Nuvei Limited’s head of risk management replied that the company would “split their traffic with more banks.” It alleges that in July 2018 the same executive wrote that fraud ratios were rising and that he planned to use Worldpay accounts “as backup.” It also alleges that when Reimage asked in October 2017 how to cut its chargebacks, a Nuvei fraud investigator found they were all for “fraud reason,” and Nuvei advised issuing refunds before disputes were filed so the networks would never see them.
A hidden operator
The complaint alleges Reimage’s operators were in Israel and its call centers in the Philippines and India, which networks treat as a higher-risk, outside-the-territory arrangement. It says that in 2016 Nuvei Limited’s then chief operating officer pressed Reimage to form a European entity, and Reimage set up Reimage Limited in the Isle of Man. Its 2017 application allegedly listed a paid nominee director from Cyprus and an address belonging to an incorporation service provider. The complaint says Nuvei knew the director had no control over operations. It also alleges the chief operating officer told staff to open the accounts before the identity check was done: “KYC can follow later on.” (KYC means “know your customer.”)
The wrong label
Card rules require merchants that sell by outbound telemarketing to carry a high-risk category code (5966) and extra monitoring. The complaint alleges Nuvei Limited instead coded Reimage as an e-commerce merchant and later as a computer software store, and that in 2019 it submitted an application to the acquiring bank Wirecard without disclosing telemarketing. It adds that Nuvei Limited’s own written risk policy treated telemarketers as high risk and listed anti-virus software “sold via inaccurate advertisements” as a prohibited industry.
| Period | Figure | Source as described in complaint |
|---|---|---|
| Prior nine months, reviewed July 2015 | Averaging as high as 8.5% (Discover) | Nuvei Limited risk report |
| Feb to Jul 2016 | Above 1% every month; peak 4.91% | Nuvei Limited credit risk team |
| Feb 2017 | Up to 2.85% (Visa) and 1.72% (Mastercard) | Defendants’ review |
| Jan 2018 to Dec 2022 | Above 1% in 57 of 60 months; 4% to 9% in many | Defendants’ internal records |
| Month reported April 2021 | 89.75% (184 chargebacks on 205 sales) | Mastercard notice sent to Reimage |
| April 2021 | 4.30% (112 of 2,600), second month flagged | Mastercard notice, May 2021 |
| 2021 full year | Averaged over 8.5% (1,108 of 12,934 sales) | Internal report, September 2021 |
The complaint also alleges Nuvei used two intermediaries, SC Digital and Upclick, that acted as “merchant of record,” a middleman that appears on the card transaction in place of the real seller. It says Mastercard ruled in 2018 that SC Digital was operating as an unregistered payment facilitator and ordered the clients moved to a compliant setup, and that Nuvei instead moved only the Mastercard portion of the volume elsewhere. Upclick, it alleges, was onboarded in 2017 with knowledge of its high-chargeback tech support clients, and asked in 2017 to open four more accounts “to keep the risk profile low.”
According to the complaint, Nuvei’s internal records showed Reimage’s chargeback rate above 1% in 57 of 60 months. Visa and Mastercard did not always flag it, and the complaint says that was because the volume was spread across accounts.
What Nuvei Allegedly Knew, and What It Did Next
The complaint’s core argument rests on a sequence of warnings followed by decisions. It says Nuvei knew by 2015 that Reimage was running a tech support scam, and it builds the case from the company’s own files.
A consumer tells SC Digital that a $34.95 “PC repair” purchase led to a telemarketer pitching costly services. In July, a Nuvei Limited risk report shows chargebacks averaging as high as 8.5% on one network.
Nuvei Limited flags Reimage internally as “[r]isky” and “[p]roblematic.” Reimage Limited’s Isle of Man application arrives. The chief operating officer allegedly urges opening accounts before identity checks.
A Mastercard audit flags 82 of Nuvei Limited’s 382 merchant accounts, including Reimage as a “scam,” and threatens $25,000 per violation. An underwriter suggests “maybe we should consider closing them.” Reimage is not terminated.
PaymentCounsel, an auditor Nuvei Limited hired after the Mastercard audit, documents screening problems, including no checks on Reimage’s actual office location.
Microsoft’s test purchase report reaches Visa, which sends Nuvei Limited a violation notice. A risk vendor’s report calls Reimage part of a “tech support scam network.” Underwriting and risk staff call the reports “very bad,” and one advises termination. The chief operating officer answers that there is “no real justification to this breach.”
Nuvei Limited agrees to process Reimage’s auto-renewing subscription charges. Visa rejects Reimage’s explanation and fines Nuvei Limited 25,000 euros, which was deducted from Reimage’s sales proceeds. Processing continues.
German police flag a Reimage transaction as part of a criminal inquiry. A risk analysis director writes that “no further actions should be taken.” The complaint says no further investigation followed.
Nuvei’s global risk group discusses Reimage’s monthly rates “up over 9%.” A sales manager reminds risk staff of “direct pressure” from the chief operating officer to increase Reimage volume.
Reimage stops submitting charges after learning of the FTC’s investigation, which, per the complaint, is why processing ended.
The complaint says that from March 2020 until Reimage shut down, the defendants processed more than 115,000 transactions totaling over $9.5 million for it.
The Complaint’s Quotes From Nuvei Documents (alleged)
“We will manage, will split their traffic with more banks….”Head of risk management, May 2017, complaint paragraph 78
“The only [thing] that we can do is to trust them that they stopped it.”Head of risk management, after the 2020 Visa fine, complaint paragraph 96
“I think that no further actions should be taken.”Risk analysis director, March 2021, complaint paragraph 105
Beyond Reimage
The complaint says Reimage was not the only merchant. It describes four others, three of which it says the FTC or other authorities later pursued. Together they are the basis for the FTC’s belief that the conduct was likely to recur, a standard it must meet to obtain a permanent injunction.
| Merchant | What the complaint alleges | Processing | Later government action |
|---|---|---|---|
| PC Vark | Tech support “software” luring users to call centers; owner on MATCH for “excessive fraud”; accounts under a nominee owner and Romanian shell company | Oct 2020 to Feb 2021 (Nuvei Limited) | Justice Department sued U.S.-based members of its fraud ring in Oct 2020 |
| DK Automation | Business coaching and Amazon stores sold with false earnings claims; underwriter noted many reviews calling it a scam | Apr 2019 to Nov 2021, over 17,000 sales, over $10M (Nuvei Technologies) | FTC sued Nov 2022, alleging at least $52.9M in consumer injury |
| American Tax Service | Tax “consulting” and government impersonation; an owner had pled guilty to bank fraud | Over $6.6M net sales, Jan 2020 to Jan 2021 (Nuvei Technologies) | FTC and Nevada sued Oct 2025; assets frozen and receiver appointed |
| Premier Health Solutions | Medical discount plans; on MATCH since 2020; state regulators in California, Vermont, and Oklahoma acted in 2022 | Over $90M, Jan 2024 to Jun 2025 (Nuvei Technologies) | Sponsoring bank told Nuvei Technologies to terminate in June 2025 |
The complaint also alleges that as of June 2025 Nuvei Limited was still processing tech support payments for Upclick and its merchants. The FTC’s order doesn’t name Upclick or any merchant, though.
What the FTC Charged and What the Court Did
The complaint has two counts. Count I charges unfair payment processing practices under the FTC Act, including opening and maintaining accounts for merchants Nuvei “knew or should have known” were engaged in unlawful practices, supplying false information to card networks, and failing to terminate such merchants. Count II charges that Nuvei provided substantial assistance to telemarketers it knew, or consciously avoided knowing, were violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule, an FTC rule against deceptive phone sales. The press release adds that the Commission voted 2-0 to authorize the filing and that the case “will be decided by the court.”
It was decided by agreement. On September 9, 2026, the court entered a stipulated order, an agreed resolution the court approves and enforces, six days after the complaint was filed. There was no trial and no ruling on the evidence. The court’s findings are limited to jurisdiction and a statement that the defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations. The $4.85 million judgment is joint and several (each defendant can be held responsible for the whole amount), was held in escrow by defense counsel, and was due within seven days. The FTC may use the money for consumer redress and related relief; the press release says it “will be used to provide consumer redress,” while the order says it “may” be.
One provision cuts against the defendants despite the lack of an admission: in any later civil case brought by or for the FTC, including one to collect the judgment, the complaint’s facts “will be taken as true, without further proof.”
| Alleged practice | Order requirement |
|---|---|
| Processing for telemarketed tech support | Permanent ban on processing for tech support sold by telemarketing or by security pop-ups (Section I.A) |
| Processing for merchants on Mastercard’s MATCH list | Ban on processing for merchants known or suspected to be listed for fraud-related reasons (Section I.B) |
| Load balancing, shell companies, refund-before-chargeback tactics | Ban on tactics to avoid risk monitoring; accounts of clients using them must be closed (Sections II.B, V.G) |
| Misleading statements on merchant applications and category codes | Ban on false or misleading statements to obtain accounts (Section II.A) |
| Onboarding before checks; continuing after warnings | Screening of higher-risk clients; monthly monitoring; quarterly test calls; investigation when chargebacks exceed 1% and 75 a month in two of six months, with account closure within 60 days unless Nuvei proves the practices are not deceptive “by clear and convincing evidence” (Sections IV to VI) |
The order also requires Nuvei to stop using or disclosing, and to destroy on the FTC’s written direction, customer data it holds from tech support payment processing; to cooperate with the FTC; and to file sworn compliance reports, with notices and record-keeping running ten years. The court keeps jurisdiction to enforce it.
Corporate Response
None of the three documents contains a statement from Nuvei. The order records that the defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations, admit only jurisdictional facts, waive fee claims, and waive any appeal.
From the Order
“Defendants neither admit nor deny any of the allegations in the Complaint, except as specifically stated in this Order.”Findings, paragraph 3
Here is the press release about this case: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/09/payment-processor-nuvei-must-implement-robust-merchant-screening-practices-pay-485-million-settle
Related posts:
FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson Would Rather Throat Trump’s Hairy Cock Than Stop Spam Robocalls
Internal emails shows how the $50M Restoro scam worked
Stratics Networks and Provident Solutions illegally annoyed everyone with 23 million ringless robocalls
This is the notorious company doing those annoying fake pop-up warnings scam.
