FTC Announces $12 Million Settlement with Payment Processor Humboldt Merchant Services
The Federal Trade Commission has agreed to a proposed $12 million settlement with Humboldt Merchant Services over allegations it processed payments for fraudulent merchants.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 8, 2026, 11:06 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 9, 2026, 9:49 a.m. ET
FTC proposes $12 million settlement with payment processor over sham merchants
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced a proposed $12 million settlement with payment processor Humboldt Merchant Services, according to a press release dated September 8, 2026. The money would go toward consumer redress, as reported by savingadvice.com.
The FTC alleges that Humboldt processed transactions for more than 1,000 merchants that were actually shell entities used as fronts or pass-throughs for businesses engaged in unauthorized billing schemes, savingadvice.com reported. The proposed settlement, filed in district court, resolves the FTC's enforcement action, and Humboldt has consented to the terms, according to savingadvice.com.
Sep 8, 2026, 11:06 a.m. ETFirst report
FTC Takes Action Against Payment Processor Humboldt Merchant Services
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced an enforcement action on September 8, 2026, against payment processor Humboldt Merchant Services. According to the FTC's press release, the action alleges that the company knowingly facilitated payment processing for sham merchants.
The FTC's announcement, titled "FTC Takes Action Against Payment Processor Humboldt Merchant Services for Knowingly Facilitating Payment Processing for Sham Merchants," was published on the agency's website on the same date. The enforcement action is part of the FTC's ongoing efforts to combat deceptive practices in payment processing.
Further details of the allegations and the specific actions taken were not provided in the initial announcement.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 15:06current
First published.
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 13:49current
First published.
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 13:53current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.