TL;DR
Get smart everyday buys delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
Riverside Payments, Cascade Equipment Leasing and their operators have agreed to a proposed order resolving FTC and Washington allegations that they misled small businesses about payment-processing savings and made cancellation difficult. The order calls for $600,000 in payment, a 60-day opportunity for customers to exit without termination penalties, and restrictions on the companies’ sales and billing practices. The allegations have not been established in court; the order takes effect if approved and signed by a judge.
Riverside Payments Inc., affiliate Cascade Equipment Leasing LLC and their operators will pay $600,000 under a proposed settlement with the Federal Trade Commission and Washington state over allegations that they misled small businesses about payment-processing savings and made it difficult to cancel. The proposed order would also let affected customers rescind processing agreements without a termination penalty during a 60-day period, but it still requires approval and signature by a federal judge.
The FTC and Washington allege that Riverside sales agents promised businesses they could save money by switching payment processors, in some cases claiming savings of 40% to 60%. According to the complaint, Riverside’s quote sheets omitted fees, including activation, batch, data-security non-compliance and inactive-processing charges. The agencies allege that businesses that switched typically ended up paying more than with their prior providers.
The complaint also alleges that sales agents did not clearly explain the terms of the agreements. Riverside’s 26-page electronic contract included an automatic renewal after an initial three-year processing term and a $695 early termination fee, according to the agencies. Cascade equipment leases allegedly ran for a year longer than the processing agreements and renewed automatically, leaving customers with separate commitments.
The agencies say Riverside advertised “no-risk” cancellation, including claims that customers could leave without a penalty, return to their former processor and receive $500 for their time and hassle. But businesses seeking to cancel allegedly faced unanswered requests, repeated calls and no direct cancellation line. The complaint also challenges Riverside’s earnings claims to sales agents: ads cited annual earnings of $75,000 to $95,000 and said top agents could make “100k,” while the agencies allege agents averaged $3,787 a year.
FTC + Washington · Proposed settlement
Small Businesses, Big Promises—and a Proposed $600,000 Payment
Riverside Payments, Cascade Equipment Leasing and their operators agreed to a proposed order resolving allegations about savings claims, contract terms and cancellation. A judge must approve and sign it before it takes effect.
The complaint’s account
What agencies say businesses were told
The FTC and Washington allege that sales promises and contract details left small businesses with higher costs and difficult exits.
01 · Savings claims
Lower costs promised
Agents allegedly said switching processors could save businesses 40% to 60%. The complaint says quote sheets omitted charges and many businesses paid more.
02 · Terms and fees
Costs across contracts
Allegedly omitted fees included activation, batch, data-security non-compliance and inactive-processing charges. Processing agreements included a $695 early termination fee.
03 · Cancellation
Multiple commitments
The complaint says equipment leases could outlast processing agreements by a year and renew automatically. Customers seeking cancellation allegedly faced unanswered requests and repeated calls.
“Riverside and Cascade promised small businesses significant savings, but instead of saving money locked them into costly, multi-year contracts and made it very difficult to cancel.”Christopher Mufarrige
Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection
A separate sales claim
Agent earnings are also at issue
The complaint challenges recruitment ads that cited annual earnings of $75,000 to $95,000 and said top agents could make “100k.” Agencies allege agents averaged $3,787 a year.
The agencies say the case concerns alleged violations of the FTC Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, including obtaining financial information through false or fraudulent statements.
These are allegations, not findings after trial. The complaint does not establish how many businesses were affected or the amount of any individual customer’s loss.
What happens next
From proposed order to customer relief
The settlement’s requirements depend on review by a federal judge in the Western District of Washington.
Judge reviews
The proposed stipulated order awaits court approval and signature.
Payment due
If signed, defendants must pay $600,000.
Customers notified
Eligible customers receive notice of the 60-day rescission period.
Rules take effect
Restrictions on sales claims, billing consent and cancellation apply.
Customer option
Fee-free rescission window
If approved, affected customers may rescind Riverside processing agreements without an early termination fee or other rescission penalty during the 60-day period.
Future conduct
Clearer sales and billing
The order would restrict claims about savings, costs, cancellation and earnings; require clearer disclosures and informed consent for negative-option billing; and require a simple cancellation method.
Reading the numbers
$600,000 now; $32 million is conditional
The proposed judgment is $32,083,921 against Riverside, Cascade, Brandon Skinner and Jason Reese. The balance would be suspended after the $600,000 payment because the settlement says defendants cannot pay the full amount.
The remaining judgment could become due if defendants are found to have misrepresented their finances. The $32 million figure is not the payment currently required by the proposed settlement.
Case status
Not final until a judge signs
The FTC and Washington filed the complaint and proposed order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Commission authorized filing in a 2–0 vote.
No hearing date or ruling timetable is provided in the available material. The source also does not say that defendants admitted wrongdoing.
“The FTC will hold accountable companies that deceive small businesses, whose hard work powers our economy.”
Christopher Mufarrige, Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer ProtectionCurrent status
Pending Customer notice and the rescission period depend on court approval and signature.For customers
Watch for the court-approved notice
The proposed order does not establish that customers can cancel without a fee today. If approved, the required notice should explain eligibility and how to rescind agreements during the 60-day window.
Allegations remain unprovenRelief for Small Business Customers
If the court approves the proposed order, customers will have 60 days to rescind Riverside processing agreements without an early termination fee or other rescission penalty. The defendants must notify customers of the period. The order would also restrict how the companies market savings, costs, cancellation terms and earnings, and require clearer disclosures before obtaining billing information.
The order would require express informed consent before billing through a negative-option plan and a simple cancellation method. These provisions address conduct alleged in the complaint and would apply to future sales and billing practices if the order takes effect.
The complaint alleges that omitted fees and separate equipment leases affected the cost and duration of customers’ commitments. These remain allegations against the defendants; the complaint does not establish the amount of any individual customer’s loss.
Products Worth Considering
HP OfficeJet 250 Wireless Mobile All-in-One Inkjet Printer
Dell UltraSharp 27 Thunderbolt Hub Monitor (U2726DER)
Samsung 27-inch Odyssey QD-OLED G8 4K 240Hz Gaming Monitor
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Complaint Alleges
The FTC and Washington filed the complaint and proposed stipulated final order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Commission authorized staff to file the case and proposed order in a 2-0 vote. The FTC says its complaint alleges violations of the FTC Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, including obtaining consumers’ financial information through false or fraudulent statements.
The proposed order imposes a judgment of $32,083,921 against Riverside, Cascade, Brandon Skinner and Jason Reese. That amount would be suspended after payment of $600,000 because, according to the settlement terms, the defendants are unable to pay the full judgment. The balance could become due if they are found to have misrepresented their finances. The $32 million figure is therefore a judgment amount subject to suspension, not the payment currently required under the proposed settlement.
The agencies’ complaint sets out allegations, rather than findings made after a trial. The FTC states that it files a complaint when it has reason to believe a law violation has occurred or is about to occur and that a proceeding is in the public interest. A stipulated final order has the force of law once a district court judge approves and signs it.
““Riverside and Cascade promised small businesses significant savings, but instead of saving money locked them into costly, multi-year contracts and made it very difficult to cancel.””
— Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection
Court Approval and Customer Impact
The proposed order is not yet a final court-approved judgment; it takes effect when approved and signed by the district court judge. The source material does not give a hearing date or say when the judge will act. Until then, the settlement’s obligations and customer notification period remain subject to the court process.
The complaint does not establish how many businesses were affected, the total fees they paid, or how many customers will seek to rescind their agreements. The agencies’ allegations about typical costs and cancellation experiences are not accompanied here by a customer count or a detailed calculation of individual losses. The source material also does not state whether Riverside or the other defendants admitted wrongdoing.
Judge to Review Proposed Order
The next step is review by a judge in the Western District of Washington. If the judge signs the stipulated final order, the defendants must make the required $600,000 payment and notify customers that they have 60 days to rescind merchant-processing agreements without a termination fee or penalty. The order’s other restrictions on claims, disclosures, consent and cancellation would also apply.
The proposed order provides for the suspended balance of the judgment to become due if the defendants are found to have lied about their finances. No court ruling date or timetable for customer notices is included in the available material. Customers’ specific eligibility and the process for rescinding agreements should be set out in the notice required by the order if it is approved.
Key Questions
What does the proposed Riverside settlement require?
It calls for a $600,000 payment, customer notice of a 60-day period to rescind processing agreements without a termination penalty, and restrictions on claims about savings, costs, cancellation and earnings. It also requires clearer transaction disclosures, informed consent for negative-option billing and a simple way to cancel.
Can Riverside customers cancel without a fee now?
The proposed order provides for a fee-free rescission period, but it becomes effective only after a judge approves and signs it. The available source material does not say that the court has approved the order or that the 60-day period has begun.
Why is the judgment more than $32 million if the payment is $600,000?
The proposed order sets a $32,083,921 judgment that would be suspended after the defendants pay $600,000 because of their stated inability to pay the full amount. The balance could become due if they are found to have misrepresented their finances.
Have the allegations against Riverside been proven?
No court finding is reported in the source material. The FTC and Washington complaint alleges deceptive sales, contract-disclosure and cancellation practices; the proposed stipulated order remains subject to judicial approval.
Source: ftc.gov
