They Called It a Free Sample. Then Came the Invoice.

Investigative Report Based on FTC v. American Future Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02266 (E.D. Pa., Filed May 13, 2020)

A company headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania spent decades calling organizations across the United States, telling employees they were receiving free materials with no obligation. Then the invoices arrived. When organizations refused to pay for things they never bought, a debt collector threatened to destroy their credit and drag them into court. Every part of that threat was a lie. This is the documented story of how American Future Systems, Inc., doing business as Progressive Business Publications, ran one of the most brazen and long-running billing fraud schemes the FTC has taken to federal court.

The targets were not wealthy investors or sophisticated financial players. They were human resources officers at small businesses. Administrators at public schools. Coordinators at fire stations and police departments. People at nonprofits running on tight budgets. The scheme was designed to exploit the reality that organizations process a high volume of paper, that invoices sometimes get paid without close scrutiny, and that the threat of debt collection is frightening enough to shake loose a payment even when the underlying debt is entirely fabricated.

The Machine: How the Scheme Worked, Step by Step

The operation began with an unsolicited phone call. AFS staff would dial an organization’s general line, reach the reception desk, and refuse to identify themselves as salespeople. The complaint describes the scripted response AFS trained its callers to use when a receptionist asked directly whether they were selling something. That script is documented in the Legal Receipts section. It is a single sentence of deliberate, pre-planned dishonesty.

Once past reception, the caller would ask to be transferred to whoever handled the topic area the publication covered — say, a human resources director for an HR-focused newsletter, or a compliance officer for an environmental regulations guide. When that employee picked up, the caller would describe the materials as a “no risk” trial, promise to send a few copies so the employee could see if it was “a good fit,” and mention that the company would be following up to see how they liked the sample. The entire framing was designed to create the impression of a friendly, pressure-free offer.

Before hanging up, AFS callers asked the employee for their month and date of birth. The stated reason was “just to verify that I spoke to you.” The real reason became clear later: that birthdate was printed on subsequent invoices as supposed proof that the employee had agreed to a paid subscription. The FTC’s complaint makes explicit that AFS never asked employees whether they had the authority to enter into financial obligations on behalf of their employer. That question was deliberately left out. An employee thinking they were signing up for a free look at a newsletter had just, in AFS’s version of events, bound their entire organization to a paid annual subscription.

The first invoice landed within 60 days. It stated that the organization had “subscribed” and listed a “balance due” of several hundred dollars. It contained no phone number, no email address, and no cancellation instructions. Subsequent invoices escalated the pressure: payment was now “overdue,” a “60-day cancellation period” had expired, and the matter would be referred to a collection agency if left unpaid. The birthdate collected on that first call appeared on the invoices as evidence of the original order.

For organizations that had received physical books under the CEEL imprint (the Center for Education and Employment Law trade name AFS also operated under), the trap had an additional mechanism. About a year after the initial contact, organizations that had paid for a book received a postcard they were required to return within a specific window to avoid being automatically billed for the next edition. The FTC’s complaint describes this as part of a “continuity plan” — automatic recurring charges — that was never disclosed to the person who received the original phone call.

When accounts went unpaid for approximately six months, AFS handed them to International Credit Recovery, Inc., operating as ICR, a collection agency based in Vestal, New York. ICR was not a neutral third party. The AFS Defendants were more than 99% of ICR’s revenue. ICR’s entire financial existence depended on collecting for AFS. That relationship created a powerful incentive for ICR to keep collecting aggressively regardless of how many consumers told them the debts were fake — and that is precisely what happened.

The Non-Financial Ledger: What Money Cannot Measure

There is a specific kind of violation that happens when an organization built to serve the public gets a debt collection call for money it does not owe. Picture a coordinator at a nonprofit feeding program, already stretched thin, staring at an invoice for several hundred dollars for a publication nobody remembers ordering. She pulls the file. She calls the number on the invoice but finds none. She asks colleagues. Nobody knows what this is. She escalates it to leadership, who now has to spend time and organizational energy investigating a claim generated by fraud. The work that does not get done while that investigation happens — the calls that go unreturned, the applications that go unfiled, the people who wait a little longer for help — that cost does not appear anywhere in the FTC’s restitution calculation.

For public institutions, the violation carries an added dimension. Schools, fire departments, and police departments operate on taxpayer money. When an AFS invoice got paid — either because the organization did not catch it, or because the threat of collection and credit damage made payment feel like the safer choice — public funds were extracted and handed to a private corporation through deception. That is money taken from teachers’ classrooms, from equipment budgets, from overtime funds. The FTC’s complaint documents that this scheme targeted these institutions directly and intentionally. AFS did not stumble into billing schools and fire stations. It called them on purpose, knowing that organizations focused on serving the public often lack the corporate legal infrastructure to fight back.

The use of a birthdate as a weapon deserves its own accounting. AFS collected that personal information under a false pretense — framed as a simple verification that a conversation had occurred. Then it weaponized that detail. When invoices arrived listing an employee’s birthdate as “proof” of an order, the implicit accusation was clear: someone in your organization agreed to this. In some cases, that turned colleague against colleague. An employee who took an innocent phone call suddenly had to prove they had not committed their organization to a financial obligation. That is a form of reputational harm and workplace stress manufactured entirely by AFS’s design. The complaint documents that consumers challenged these invoices directly and were ignored, that cancellation requests went unacknowledged, and that book returns were claimed by AFS never to have been received.

The ICR collection calls compounded the psychological toll. ICR collectors telephoned consumers and told them that failure to pay would damage their credit rating and result in legal action. The FTC’s complaint is unambiguous: both of those statements were false. ICR did not report to credit bureaus. ICR did not file lawsuits. But the people receiving those calls did not know that. They heard a collector’s voice telling them their credit score — their ability to get a mortgage, a car loan, a line of business credit — was at risk over a debt their organization never incurred. The fear that created was real, even though the threat behind it was manufactured. For small businesses operating on thin margins, a threat to credit is an existential threat, and AFS and ICR used it as a collection tool while knowing it was a lie.

The length of this scheme matters as a measure of human cost. The FTC’s complaint notes that by 1998, the BBB had already placed an alert on AFS’s public profile warning about billing for unordered merchandise. By 2013, the BBB had received more than 2,400 complaints against Progressive Business Publications. The U.S. Department of Agriculture issued an alert about ICR’s collection conduct in October 2009. AFS had previously settled with the U.S. Postal Service in 1995 over the same basic scheme and agreed to revise its mailings. That revision period ended and AFS reverted to its old practices. Every single one of those 2,400-plus BBB complaints represents a real organization that spent real time and real money fighting a fake invoice. Multiply that across the full timeline and the toll of stolen time, stress, and institutional disruption is staggering.

There is also the indignity of being disbelieved and ignored. The FTC’s complaint documents that consumers complained to AFS directly, to the BBB, to state Attorneys General, and still the scheme continued. ICR collectors, when consumers challenged the legitimacy of the debts during collection calls, continued pursuing payment anyway. The complaint states that ICR continued collection efforts even after consumers disputed the debts, citing the birthdate and email as “verification.” Being told you owe money for something you never bought, presenting your evidence, and having the collector keep going anyway is a specific form of institutional dismissal. It says: your account of your own experience does not matter. The invoice is the reality and you are an obstacle to it.

Legal Receipts: The Documents Don’t Lie

Every passage below is taken verbatim from the FTC’s federal complaint, Case No. 2:20-cv-02266, filed May 13, 2020, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

“The AFS Defendants’ scripted response to the question, ‘Are you selling something?’ is to respond, ‘No, that’s not it.'”

FTC Complaint, ¶17, Page 5 of 18

“The AFS Defendants create the impression that they are sending free samples with no obligation and do not disclose that, in reality, they have enrolled the organization into the AFS Defendants’ subscription service and they will charge the organization for the samples unless affirmative action is taken to cancel, including returning the CEEL book.”

FTC Complaint, ¶18, Page 6 of 18

“The invoice does not include any reference to or method for cancellation of the subscription to avoid a monetary obligation. It does not include a telephone number or an email address for either AFS Corporate Defendant.”

FTC Complaint, ¶19, Page 6 of 18

“Subsequent invoices state that payment is overdue and that a 60-day cancellation period has expired. Invoices may include a reference to an employee’s birthdate as purported proof of the original order. Invoices eventually threaten that the matter will be referred to a collection agency if left unpaid.”

FTC Complaint, ¶20, Page 7 of 18

“Consumers (both organizations and their employees) complain that they receive invoices to pay the AFS Defendants for PBP and CEEL newsletter and book subscriptions they did not order and never agreed to purchase.”

FTC Complaint, ¶22, Page 7 of 18

“Consumers also complain that their cancellation requests are ignored and that the AFS Defendants claim to not have received their book returns.”

FTC Complaint, ¶23, Page 7 of 18

“Around 1998, the Better Business Bureau (‘BBB’) placed an alert on AFS’s publicly-available BBB profile, which remains there today, advising the public that AFS has an unsatisfactory business performance record due to a pattern of complaints alleging billing for unordered merchandise. AFS sued the BBB for defamation based on the alert in 2001. In 2004, the jury returned a verdict against AFS and in favor of the BBB, and judgment was entered accordingly.”

FTC Complaint, ¶24, Page 7 of 18

“In 2013, the BBB issued another alert titled ‘Progressive Business Publications Continues to Receive Complaints Nationwide,’ advising that the AFS Corporate Defendants and ICR, one of the AFS Corporate Defendants’ collection agencies, each have demanded payment for publications and newsletter subscriptions that were never ordered and, in many cases, never received. The alert advised that some complainants said that the publications were marketed as free trials, but the complainants were nonetheless billed later. The alert states that the BBB had received more than 2,400 complaints against Progressive Business Publications and more than 900 complaints against ICR.”

FTC Complaint, ¶25, Pages 7–8 of 18

“The AFS Defendants have known for years of a pattern of complaints against them regarding subscriptions that were never ordered, yet continue their nationwide scheme. Except for a period of time during which AFS changed the wording on its mailings due to a settlement in 1995 with the United States Postal Service related to billing for unordered business publications, the AFS Defendants have not changed their practices to address the pattern of complaints.”

FTC Complaint, ¶28, Page 8 of 18

“The AFS Defendants have consistently been ICR’s largest client, accounting for more than 99% of its revenue. ICR is a small company, consisting of fewer than 10 employees.”

FTC Complaint, ¶30, Page 8 of 18

“Soon after receiving an account, the ICR Defendants send a letter to the contact for the account, which states, ‘Your past due account has been referred to us for immediate collection …. Action on your part is needed now!!! Do not make the mistake of delaying any longer.'”

FTC Complaint, ¶31, Page 9 of 18

“The ICR Defendants have represented to consumers during the collection process that failure to pay the debt would impact their credit rating or would result in legal action or referral to collections.”

FTC Complaint, ¶33, Page 9 of 18

“In truth and in fact, the ICR Defendants do not report the nonpayment of PBP accounts to credit bureaus and do not initiate litigation against or ‘refer to collections’ consumers who do not pay. The ICR Defendants also know that the AFS Defendants will not take further action to collect accounts turned over to the ICR Defendants.”

FTC Complaint, ¶34, Page 9 of 18

“When ICR collectors represent that the organizations owe the purported AFS Defendants’ debt, the ICR Defendants know or have reason to know that many of them had not agreed to any financial obligation for the AFS Defendants’ publications.”

FTC Complaint, ¶35, Page 9 of 18

“In October 2009, the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued an alert, which remains readily available today, advising of a scam involving ICR’s collection efforts for payment for publications that people claim not to have purchased. The ICR Defendants became aware of the alert in 2009 or 2010, but did not discuss it with the AFS Defendants and did not conduct any additional investigation or due diligence into the AFS Defendants. The ICR Defendants have not changed their collection practices as a result of the alert.”

FTC Complaint, ¶38, Page 10 of 18

“ICR responded to the BBB’s notice by stating that it was aware that the AFS Defendants’ customers were upset about being billed for a product they felt they did not order and that they thought was free.”

FTC Complaint, ¶39, Page 10 of 18

“Defendant ICR was the top generator of BBB complaints in its geographical region, many of which contained statements by consumers that they did not owe the AFS Corporate Defendants’ alleged debts.”

FTC Complaint, ¶41, Page 10–11 of 18

“In numerous instances, the ICR Defendants continue collection efforts even after consumers challenge the legitimacy of the purported debts, telling consumers that the AFS Corporate Defendants had told the consumer that the subscription would be for one year if not cancelled within a certain time period and that the employee’s birthdate and email address were provided to the AFS Defendants as verification of the order.”

FTC Complaint, ¶45, Page 11 of 18

“Satell has actual knowledge of the AFS Corporate Defendants’ deceptive conduct, has been recklessly indifferent to its deceptiveness, or has had an awareness of a high probability of deceptiveness and intentionally avoided learning the truth. Satell has knowledge of the longstanding pattern of complaints against the AFS Corporate Defendants, including the BBB alerts and complaints made directly to him.”

FTC Complaint, ¶46, Page 12 of 18

“An associate counsel for one of the largest retailers in the United States sent numerous cease and desist letters to the AFS Defendants, including directly to Satell, regarding the AFS Defendants’ invoicing for alleged orders of publications. The Assistant General Counsel for another company sent a letter directly to Satell regarding the fraudulent invoice his employer had received, and referred in that letter to the ‘voluminous complaints that have been lodged against ICR and PBP for similar deceptive trade practices.'”

FTC Complaint, ¶46, Page 12 of 18

“Satell also was a defendant in a case brought by the United States Postal Service (‘USPS’), in which the USPS alleged his involvement in a scheme in which AFS employees sent unsolicited invoices to businesses for publication subscriptions and for publications that were offered as free issues. As part of the settlement in that case, Satell and AFS agreed to revise the wording in their mailings for a specific period. That period has ended and the revisions no longer appear in the AFS Defendants’ mailings.”

FTC Complaint, ¶46, Page 12–13 of 18

“Defendants Diorio and Powell have actual knowledge of the AFS Defendants’ and ICR’s deceptive conduct, have been recklessly indifferent to its deceptiveness, or have had an awareness of a high probability of deceptiveness and intentionally avoided learning the truth.”

FTC Complaint, ¶51, Page 13 of 18

“Consumers are suffering, have suffered, and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a result of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act and the Unordered Merchandise Statute. In addition, Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of their unlawful acts or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendants are likely to continue to injure consumers, reap unjust enrichment, and harm the public interest.”

FTC Complaint, ¶69, Page 16–17 of 18

The Complaint Trail: Documented Warnings Ignored

The timeline below maps every documented warning AFS and ICR received and the years in which they are confirmed to have known about those warnings, as stated in the FTC’s complaint. Each warning was ignored. The scheme continued.

Societal Impact Mapping

The harm from this scheme did not stop at the organizations that received fraudulent invoices. It rippled outward through institutional trust, public resources, and the communities those organizations serve. The FTC’s complaint, read carefully, maps a set of damages that extend well beyond what any single restitution order can repair.

Environmental Degradation

The direct environmental footprint of this scheme is measurable in physical terms. AFS ran its operation by mailing unsolicited newsletters, books, postcards, and invoices at industrial scale to organizations across the United States. Every one of those mailings represented paper, ink, and the energy and emissions associated with printing and postal logistics. The FTC’s complaint documents that AFS had been engaged in this mailing pattern since at least 2014 and that the scheme had attracted complaints since at least 1998. That is a minimum of two decades of mass, unsolicited physical mailings sent specifically to organizations that did not want the materials and in many cases never received them or immediately discarded them.

The Unordered Merchandise Statute, cited directly in the FTC’s complaint as a core legal violation, exists in part because the practice of sending unrequested goods and then billing for them creates waste at scale. When a school district or a nonprofit receives a box of newsletters it did not order and has no use for, those publications go in the recycling bin or the trash. When the invoice arrives and the organization has no phone number to call, the invoice itself gets filed in a dispute folder before eventually being discarded. The postcards requiring affirmative cancellation to stop recurring book shipments represent yet another layer of forced paper processing. All of this material output was generated entirely by corporate fraud.

More broadly, this case is a documented example of how business fraud generates environmental waste as a direct byproduct of the extraction mechanism. The scheme required physical goods as props to manufacture the appearance of a legitimate transaction. Those goods cost resources to produce, ship, and dispose of — and because the entire purpose of sending them was to create a billing pretext rather than to deliver value, every ounce of that material represents pure environmental loss. The people receiving these packages were not customers. They were marks.

Public Health

Debt collection stress is a documented public health issue. Research on financial stress consistently shows that aggressive collection contact, threats of credit damage, and the experience of being pursued for money one does not owe are associated with elevated anxiety, disrupted sleep, and deteriorating mental health. The ICR Defendants in this case applied exactly these tools against people who were already on the wrong side of a fraud. They called. They demanded payment. They threatened credit damage. They threatened legal action. The FTC’s complaint makes clear that every one of those threats was false, but the people on the receiving end of those calls did not know that at the time.

The health stakes were compounded by the profile of the institutions targeted. The FTC’s complaint specifically names schools, fire departments, and police departments among the targeted organizations. Administrators at these institutions operate under chronic resource and stress pressure. A fire department administrator processing an unexpected invoice for several hundred dollars for a publication nobody ordered, while simultaneously managing operational budgets, staffing, and emergency response logistics, is being hit with an additional stressor in a role that already carries substantial mental health burden. The systematic targeting of public safety and educational institutions with fraudulent billing is a form of institutional stress that has downstream effects on the humans working within those systems.

Nonprofits, also named as targets in the complaint, serve populations that often lack other social support structures. Staff at nonprofits working in housing, food security, healthcare access, or social services are frequently underpaid and overextended. Placing additional administrative burden on those organizations through fraudulent invoices and collection calls diverts staff time and organizational energy from the populations those nonprofits exist to serve. The health consequences of that resource diversion fall on the communities the nonprofits support, not just on the staff managing the invoice dispute.

Economic Inequality

This scheme was architecturally designed to extract money from institutions with limited legal and administrative resources. Large corporations with in-house legal departments and dedicated accounts payable staff have the infrastructure to identify fraudulent invoices quickly, dispatch a cease-and-desist letter, and absorb the administrative cost without significant disruption. Small businesses, schools, community fire departments, and nonprofits do not have that infrastructure. The FTC’s complaint documents that an associate counsel at one of the largest retailers in the United States sent cease-and-desist letters directly to CEO Edward M. Satell. That retailer had an associate counsel. Most of the organizations on AFS’s call list did not.

The scheme concentrated its extraction pressure on precisely those institutions that serve lower-income and working-class communities. A neighborhood nonprofit. A regional school district. A small business in a mid-size city. These are not organizations with war chests for dispute litigation. The combination of a frightening invoice, a fake debt, and a collection agency threatening credit damage was calibrated to produce payments from organizations that could least afford to fight back. The FTC’s complaint documents that this pressure worked on a significant enough scale that the scheme persisted for decades and generated revenues sufficient to make AFS the source of more than 99% of ICR’s entire business.

The economic inequality dimension is also visible in the enforcement timeline itself! AFS drew warnings from the Better Business Bureau in 1998, settled with the U.S. Postal Service in 1995, and continued operating for another 25 years before the FTC filed a federal lawsuit in 2020. During that quarter-century, thousands of organizations paid fraudulent invoices. The complaint notes that the FTC is seeking disgorgement of “ill-gotten monies,” but the complaint does not quantify the total amount extracted. Whatever that figure is, it represents a transfer of wealth from public institutions, small businesses, and nonprofits to the private accounts of the defendants named in this case. That transfer happened because the legal and regulatory infrastructure needed to stop it moved slowly, and because the targets of the fraud had fewer resources to demand faster action.

The FTC’s website has a whole library of information about this lawsuit against American Future Systems: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/172-3085-american-future-systems-inc

The websites (plural) for Progressive Business Publications appears to be down.

Related posts:

How Mayborn Inc. Endangers Babies with BPA & Microplastics in Baby Bottles Firstrade fined $85K for doing deceptive marketing. The Largest “Made in USA” Scandal in History. Ka’Chava: Thousands Paid Premium Prices for Nutrition That Wasn’t There