Important News

Court Temporarily Halts Operations of Alleged Deceptive Health Care Telemarketers at FTC Request

Interesting: 0/0 • Support: 0/0Log in to vote

Key takeaways

  • The Federal Trade Commission asked a U.S. district court in Florida to act against deceptive health care telemarketers.
  • The court temporarily stopped operations of a network of companies and individuals accused of deceptive marketing.
  • The FTC alleges Florida-based Top Healthcare Options caused "tens of millions of dollars" in harm to consumers seeking comprehensive health insurance.
  • The action targets telemarketing of health care plans; the FTC posted a press release with details and a link to the court action.

Follow Up Questions

Who exactly are the companies and individuals named in the FTC complaint (for example, what is Top Healthcare Options and who runs it)?Expand

The FTC’s complaint names 12 defendants: Top Healthcare Options Insurance Agency Inc (THO); Golden State Advisors Insurance Agency LLC; Top Healthcare Solutions LLC; Direct Health Solutions Insurance Agency, LLC; Prime Healthcare Solutions Insurance Agency LLC; Premier Services Group Hub LLC; Elevation Media Group LLC; Sargent Financial LLC (d/b/a WeMake Media LLC); Ramz Media Marketing LLC; and individuals Tiffanie Gonzalez, Ramzey Hassoun, and Richard Sargent. The filings allege THO is a Florida‑based insurance agency tied to the telemarketing network and identify Gonzalez, Hassoun and Sargent as officers/managers of several of the corporate defendants.

What specific deceptive marketing practices does the FTC allege were used to sell the health care plans?Expand

The FTC says the defendants used web pages that looked like ACA/“Obamacare” portals to harvest leads, sold those leads to telemarketers, then misrepresented and sold limited‑benefit plans or medical‑discount memberships as comprehensive health insurance (including false claims they were PPOs, covered specific providers/services/medications, or limited consumers’ out‑of‑pocket responsibility). The complaint alleges those representations were false or misleading and violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule and the FTC Act.

What did the court order as part of the temporary stop — does it include asset freezes, halting calls, seizing websites or other measures?Expand

The court entered an ex parte temporary restraining order that (per the FTC filings) halts the defendants’ operations and includes an asset freeze, appointment of a temporary receiver to take control of the business, and other equitable relief; the TRO also contains an Order to Show Cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. (The sealed TRO/Order is posted in the FTC legal file.)

How many consumers does the FTC say were affected, and is there a more precise estimate than "tens of millions" in alleged harm?Expand

The FTC’s public statement describes the damage as “tens of millions of dollars” in consumer harm but does not give a precise count of consumers affected in the press release or the public case summary; no more specific consumer‑count was provided in the FTC materials released Jan. 23, 2026.

How can consumers determine whether they were affected, and how should they report a complaint or seek redress?Expand

If you filled out an online quote form that appeared to offer ACA/“Obamacare” plans, received a call from the operators named in the complaint, or were charged for a plan that turned out to be a limited‑benefit plan or discount membership, you may be affected. Keep records (web pages, call details, receipts, bank/credit‑card charges) and report the matter at ReportFraud.ftc.gov; monitor ftc.gov for any refund instructions—the FTC says it is seeking refunds for affected consumers.

What are the next legal steps in this case (e.g., preliminary injunction hearing, discovery, trial), and what timeline should consumers expect?Expand

The FTC filed a complaint seeking permanent injunctive relief and a monetary judgment; the immediate court step after the ex parte TRO is the Order to Show Cause on why a preliminary injunction should not issue (i.e., a preliminary‑injunction hearing/motion practice). If the case continues it will proceed to discovery, further motions, and potentially trial; exact dates depend on the Southern District of Florida’s scheduling. Consumers should watch the FTC case page and the federal docket for hearing dates and any consumer‑refund notices.

Comments

Only logged-in users can comment.
Loading…