Freedom Debt Relief review.
Consumer debt settlement
One of the largest debt negotiators in the country. Scale is the pitch, and scale is the tradeoff.
Our verdict
Freedom Debt Relief is the volume leader of consumer settlement. That cuts both ways. Creditors have standing relationships with them, the operation runs seven days a week, and the machine genuinely settles enormous amounts of debt. But a machine is what it is. Your file is one of hundreds of thousands, and the experience reads accordingly in the complaint record.
One thing we insist readers know: in 2019, Freedom settled with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau over allegations about fees charged without settlements and disclosure practices, paying over $20 million in redress and penalties. Companies can and do reform (the current operation carries an A+ BBB) but you should read that consent order before you sign anything. That’s not a smear; it’s public record and it’s your money.
For business debt, everything said about the other consumer giants applies double here: the playbook is credit cards, the timeline is years, and a funder with a COJ will not wait in that line.
What we like
- One of the largest settlement operations in the country; creditors know them
- Customer service available seven days a week
- A+ BBB; mostly five-star Trustpilot profile
- Co-founded the industry’s main trade association standards
What gave us pause
- You are one of hundreds of thousands of files
- Settled with the CFPB in 2019 ($20M+ in redress and penalties) over fee and disclosure practices; read it before you sign
- No commercial/MCA capability
Who it’s for
- Large personal unsecured balances
- People who want 7-day access to service staff
Who should look elsewhere
- Anyone who wants boutique attention
- Commercial debt of any structure
How Freedom Debt Relief stacks up against our #1 pick
Local guides where readers use this review
In their own words
What customers wrote about Freedom Debt Relief
What satisfied customers wrote
“I was served papers by several creditors that they were going to take me to court for my indebtedness to them. I didn't know what I was going to do. I researched and found Freedom Debt Relief. I called them and followed their instructions on what I needed to do. The rest is history! I am now debt free and for a lot less than what I originally owed thanks to Freedom Debt Relief. They negotiated my debts down so that I only had to pay a smaller amount than was originally owed. I would recommend Freedom Debt Relief to anyone that finds themselves in the same position that I was In.”
★★★★★ Zaye R · 08/18/2026 · BBB
“Great Experience Im very thankful for the help I received from Freedom Debt Relief. From the beginning, the team was professional, patient, and willing to explain the process and answer all of my questions. They helped me get a better handle on my debt and gave me a plan that I could actually work with. The process can be stressful, but having people there to guide me made a big difference. Im grateful for the progress Ive made and would definitely recommend Freedom Debt Relief to anyone who is struggling with debt and looking for help getting back on track.”
★★★★★ Tony B · 08/18/2026 · BBB
“Freedom debt relief has helped me a lot first of all theyre extremely fast and their staff are extremely helpful. The minute I started my deposits they are 100% on your account. I cant tell you enough how supportive and kind their entire staff are. Ive been with them just over a month and theyve already gotten a settlement Out of all five of my accounts. They are the best I cannot say enough wonderful things about them.”
★★★★★ Lori S · 08/20/2026 · BBB
What complaints and critics wrote
“This company uses predatory practices making a lot of promises and gives you false numbers and calculations. My credit score dropped from nearly 700 to less than 500 in no time. They started taking payments out of my account on January 2026 and continued all the way to May 2026. Their customer service was very nice and polite at first, when I started questioning about their progress they started being not so nice or polite anymore. They kept close to $5000.00 dollars, my credit was ruined, I had creditors chasing me and calling me, while they sat on my account and only according to them negotiated only one of my accounts. When I asked why you stopped negotiating my other accounts, there was no answer but they surely kept on taking the $512.00 per/month without any other progress.”
★ George L · 08/17/2026 · BBB customer review
“Freedom Debt relief assured that they would handle all litigations that arose while under the program. Creditor Mariner Finance sent me to court and I contacted Freedom Debt relief and forwarded all the paperwork months prior to the hearing. I called multiple times to receive guidance and was advised that my case was still waiting to be assigned to a litigator and someone would contact me shortly. [name withheld] ever contacted me until 2 days before the hearing when I was out of town on a work trip, being advised that I should attend. I was unable to attend and a judgement was filed against me. Since then, I have received emails stating that they are currently working to negotiate a settlement with [name withheld] but recently I was advised by mail, that garnishment of wages were submitted to my employer. I contacted Freedom Debt relief and now they are telling me that there is nothing that can be done and I should continue to make my payments. I asked how can I continue to make payments with my wages being garnished. This entire program is misleading and they have not represented me based on the promises made upon sign up. I would like Freedom debt relief to stop the garnishment of wages and to deliver on their promise in resolving my credit issues instead of making it worse.”
Complainant · 07/27/2026 · BBB complaint · Product Issues
The company repliedThank you for the opportunity to respond to [name withheld] concerns. Freedom Debt Relief has contacted [name withheld] directly to address the mentioned concerns, and we are actively working with her to reach an amicable resolution. We encourage [name withheld] to continue reaching out to her direct point of contact should she have any further questions or updates regarding her account.
“Signed up with Freedom debt relief at which time they have only resolved one of my predators with 11 remaining. The money deposited into their dedicated account as they call it is pretty much all I can afford each month. And yet Freedom debt relief pays the one resolved that and keeps the rest for fees therefore not being able to resolve any of the other creditors at all! When I called the response was when you can get 25% of the total debt into the dedicated account they can resolve them faster. I'm not stupid that's impossible if they're taking all the rest of the money that they are withdrawing from my account for so-called fees. Is this really a legitimate company or should I contact the New York State Governor attorney general's office??”
Complainant · 07/31/2026 · BBB complaint · Billing Issues
The company repliedWe appreciate the opportunity to address Mr. [name withheld] concerns regarding his program progress, dedicated account funds, and fee structure. Our goal is always to help our clients resolve their enrolled debts as effectively as possible while maintaining complete transparency regarding how program funds and fees are assessed and earned. Monthly deposits made into the dedicated account belong strictly to the client and are designated for accumulating settlement funds to negotiate with enrolled creditors. In accordance with Mr. [name withheld] signed Client Agreement, fees are only earned and collected once a specific debt is successfully settled and a settlement payment has been made to the creditor. Fees are never charged upfront for accounts not yet negotiated. Following multiple phone and email outreach attempts, Mr. [name withheld] responded via email expressing concern regarding the program fees. In response, we provided a detailed explanation outlining how and when fees are earned and collected per his signed agreement. We remain fully committed to supporting Mr. [name withheld] throughout his debt resolution program. We encourage him to reach out directly to his dedicated Point of Contact if he has any additional concerns.
Quotes are reproduced exactly as written, including original spelling and punctuation, and are trimmed only with an ellipsis where marked. Where the BBB has redacted an employee’s name we show [name withheld]. Reviewers are identified only by the display name their platform shows. We pick quotes to represent the range on each profile, not to make a case, and we publish the overall rating and review count beside them so you can judge how typical any one of them is. Retrieved August 24, 2026.
The court record
Lawsuits involving Freedom Debt Relief
13 matters on file, grouped by who did the suing, because those are not the same fact. We confirmed every one against a court record. 1 of them does not name this company as a party, and says so where it appears.
Lawsuits involving Freedom Debt Relief (13)
Each entry is tagged by who brought it. A funder suing a settlement firm and a client suing one are close to opposite facts, so read the tag before the caption.
-
Client sued Daniel Berman, et al. v. Freedom Financial Network, LLC, Freedom Debt Relief, LLC, Fluent, Inc., and Lead Science, LLC Settled
DispositionSettled; $9,750,000 non-reversionary common fund; final approval granted March 11, 2024
Putative class alleged that calls using a prerecorded voice were placed between May 17, 2017 and April 17, 2018 to market Freedom Financial Network, LLC and Freedom Debt Relief, LLC products in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; the parties settled for a $9,750,000 fund covering approximately 40,000 class members, and the settlement notice states that 'Defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing in the lawsuit' and 'do not admit to any wrongdoing and continue to deny the allegations.'
View the record ↗ -
Client sued Daniel Berman v. Freedom Financial Network, LLC Affirmed on appeal
DispositionDistrict court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration affirmed, April 5, 2022; published at 30 F.4th 849
Interlocutory appeal in the Berman TCPA action in which the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion to compel arbitration, holding the websites' sign-up screens did not put users on constructive notice of the terms of service; the ruling addressed contract formation only and made no finding on the underlying TCPA allegations.
View the record ↗ -
Client sued Carlsen, et al. v. Freedom Debt Relief, LLC, et al. Voluntarily dismissed
DispositionCERTIFIED CLASS, SETTLED, WITH A FEE AWARD AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS. The company lost its threshold motions: on March 26, 2010 Chief Judge Lonny R. Suko entered an 'ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION, INTER ALIA; granting 35 Motion to Certify Class; denying 57 Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss.' The case then settled. On July 13, 2011 the court entered a 'FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT APPROVING CLASS SETTLEMENT; all claims asserted herein on behalf of the Class are hereby dismissed with prejudice, with the exception of the still pending individual claims of Chad M. and Shasta L. Carlsen' (Dkt. 186). On July 15, 2011 the named plaintiffs' remaining individual claims were 'dismissed without prejudice and shall be resolved through arbitration' (Dkt. 188). Class representative stipends were awarded July 22, 2011 and amended July 25, 2011 (Dkts. 189, 190). On August 26, 2011 the court entered an 'ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS; Defendants shall pay to Plaintiffs' counsel, within fifteen (15) days of the date of this order, $893,867.78 in attorney fees and $4,050.22 in costs' (Dkt. 195). Defendants' interlocutory appeal (9th Cir. No. 10-35400) was voluntarily dismissed by stipulation; the mandate issued September 13, 2011. Case terminated July 25, 2011. This is a negotiated class settlement approved by the court, NOT an adjudication or admission of liability.
Washington consumers brought a putative class action concerning fees charged for debt-adjusting services; a certified question arising from the litigation was answered by the Washington Supreme Court in Carlsen v. Global Client Solutions, LLC, 171 Wn.2d 486 (2011).
View the record ↗ -
Client sued Estrella v. Freedom Financial Network, LLC Settled
DispositionNATIONWIDE CLASS ACTION SETTLED FOR $1.9 MILLION; FINAL APPROVAL AND JUDGMENT ENTERED. Procedural history from the final approval order: class certified June 2, 2010 (amended October 25, 2010 to exclude Washington residents); cross-motions for summary judgment denied March 14, 2011 (778 F. Supp. 2d 1041); after AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion the court on January 24, 2012 GRANTED the Freedom Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and DECERTIFIED the class. The parties then settled. On October 1, 2012 Judge Susan Illston entered an 'ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, EXPENSES AND INCENTIVE AWARDS,' and a JUDGMENT was entered the same day; the case was terminated October 2, 2012, and an ORDER CORRECTING JUDGMENT was entered February 5, 2013. Terms: 'the Freedom Defendants agreed to pay $1,400,000 to resolve claims against them, in addition to the $500,000 RMBT and GCS had previously agreed to.' Notice reached approximately 87,912 class members; 5,102 claims were submitted; the expected average net recovery was about $185 per claimant. In exchange the Freedom Defendants and affiliates received 'a full release of all claims which have been made or could have been made herein.' The court found the settlement 'fair, reasonable and adequate' and 'the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations.' This is a consent settlement with a release, NOT a finding of liability.
Consumer credit action against Freedom Financial Network, LLC in which the district court issued a published opinion in 2011; the final disposition of the docket was not verified.
View the record ↗ -
Client sued Josey v. Freedom Debt Relief LLC Voluntarily dismissed
DispositionSettled, then voluntarily dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE by the plaintiff. Dkt. 7 (August 13, 2024): 'NOTICE by Linda Josey of Settlement.' Dkt. 8 (October 3, 2024): 'NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice by Linda Josey.' Case terminated October 3, 2024 before Judge Edward M. Chen. No judgment and no ruling on the merits.
Action against Freedom Debt Relief, LLC docketed under nature of suit 485, Telephone Consumer Protection Act; the docket entry was confirmed but the disposition was not verified.
View the record ↗ -
Client sued McGonigle v. Freedom Debt Relief, LLC Voluntarily dismissed
DispositionVoluntarily dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE by the plaintiffs. Dkt. 29 (October 3, 2025): 'NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE – Plaintiffs hereby file this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant has not served an answer or a motion for summary judgment.' The order on the notice was filed October 6, 2025 (Dkt. 30): 'This matter is Dismissed without Prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a).' The company's motion to dismiss and/or strike the complaint was pending and was never decided; there was no ruling on the merits and no judgment. CLASSIFICATION NOTE: pleaded as a putative class action – 'Andrew McGonigle and Yanira Gomez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.'
Action against Freedom Debt Relief, LLC docketed under nature of suit Telephone Consumer Protection Act; the docket entry was confirmed but the disposition was not verified.
View the record ↗ -
Client sued Laney v. Freedom Debt Relief, LLC Status not verified
Action against Freedom Debt Relief, LLC docketed under nature of suit Truth in Lending; the docket entry was confirmed but the disposition was not verified.
View the record ↗ -
Client sued Bianca Garcia v. Freedom Debt Relief, LLC Status not verified
Action against Freedom Debt Relief, LLC docketed under nature of suit 890, Other Statutory Actions; the docket entry was confirmed but the disposition was not verified.
View the record ↗ -
Regulator Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Freedom Debt Relief, LLC and Andrew Housser Consent judgment
DispositionStipulated Final Judgment and Order entered July 9, 2019. Consent resolution without adjudication: 'The Bureau and Defendants agree to the entry of this Stipulated Final Judgment and Order (Order), without adjudication of any issue of fact or law.' Para. 4: 'Defendants neither admit nor deny any allegations in the First Amended Complaint, except as specifically stated in this Order. For the purposes of this Order, Defendants admit the facts necessary to establish the Court's jurisdiction over them and the subject matter of this action.' There is NO finding or admission of liability. Individual defendant Andrew Housser was DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (Order para. 74) and bore no monetary obligation; all monetary relief runs against the 'Company Defendant,' Freedom Debt Relief, LLC.
The CFPB commenced the action on November 8, 2017 alleging violations of the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. 6102(c) and 6105(d); the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. pt. 310; and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, 12 U.S.C. 5531 and 5536(a), in connection with the marketing, sale, and provision of debt-relief services. Per the Bureau, it alleged the company charged advance fees and failed to inform consumers of their rights to funds deposited with the company (TSR), and charged consumers without settling their debts as promised, charged consumers after having them negotiate their own settlements with creditors, and misled consumers about its fees and its ability to negotiate directly with all of a consumer's creditors (CFPA). The parties resolved the case by stipulated judgment; the injunctive terms prohibit misrepresenting whether a present creditor will negotiate directly with the company or the company's present ability to negotiate or settle an enrolled debt (para. 29), prohibit requesting or receiving any fee in connection with a Non-Settlement Outcome (para. 30), and require pre-enrollment disclosures that the company may ask the consumer to negotiate directly with a creditor and that the consumer may withdraw the debt without charge or penalty (para. 31), and that on withdrawal the consumer is entitled to all funds in the Settlement Account other than fees lawfully earned (para. 32).
View the record ↗ -
Regulator The People of the State of New York, by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York v. Freedom Debt Relief, LLC and Freedom Financial Network, LLC Consent order
DispositionConsent Order & Judgment. 'FDR agrees to the terms of this Consent Order without admitting or denying any of the allegations in the NYAG's Notice of Petition and Verified Petition.' No finding of liability.
The NYAG commenced a special proceeding alleging that Freedom Debt Relief, LLC and Freedom Financial Network, LLC violated an Assurance of Discontinuance the companies entered into with the NYAG on March 7, 2011, by advertising savings figures without the disclosures the AOD required; per the AG's press release, the advertised savings were achieved only by consumers who made all their monthly program deposits, a group representing about one-third of New York consumers. The matter was resolved by consent order requiring $3.6 million in restitution and imposing forward-looking advertising and disclosure requirements.
View the record ↗ -
Regulator In re Freedom Financial Asset Management, LLC and Cross River Bank, Teaneck, New Jersey Consent order
DispositionConsent Order, Order for Restitution, and Order to Pay Civil Money Penalty, issued March 28, 2018. Per the FDIC's announcement the agency 'found' Section 5 FTC Act, Truth in Lending Act and Electronic Fund Transfer Act violations; the underlying order text and its admission/denial language were not independently retrieved and should be checked before quoting a finding.
Who this is againstFreedom Financial Asset Management, LLC and Cross River Bank, not Freedom Debt Relief, LLC. This order runs against an affiliate under common ownership rather than the company reviewed on this page.
The FDIC settled with Cross River Bank and its institution-affiliated party Freedom Financial Asset Management, LLC over the marketing and origination of Consolidation Plus (C+) Loans, concerning unfair and deceptive practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act and violations of TILA and EFTA. IMPORTANT FOR EDITORS: the respondent is Freedom Financial Asset Management, LLC, an affiliate – NOT Freedom Debt Relief, LLC. The CFPB's 2019 judgment expressly defines this as the 'FDIC Consent Order' and credits its $493,500 penalty against the CFPB penalty.
View the record ↗ -
Regulator The People of the State of California v. Freedom Debt Relief, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, et al. Consent judgment
DispositionConsent Judgment entered on the parties' stipulation. Express non-admission: 'Defendants having disputed the allegations of wrongdoing and liability in this action, and denying that any relief should be granted in connection with the claims and allegations asserted in the action.' As to the civil penalty specifically: 'This payment shall not constitute an admission or finding of liability, and is being agreed to because it is the policy of the San Mateo County District Attorney's Office to require a payment under Business and Professions Code section 17206 for the resolution of actions brought under Business and Professions Code section 17200.'
The People, appearing through the San Mateo County District Attorney and the California Corporations Commissioner, sued Freedom Debt Relief, LLC; Freedom Debt Relief, Inc.; Freedom Financial Network, LLC; Alivio Holdings, LLC; Bills.com, Inc.; Bills.com, LLC; Freedom Tax Relief, LLC; Alivio Mortgage, LLC; and individuals Andrew Housser and Brad Stroh, pleading claims under Business and Professions Code sections 17200, 17203, 17204, 17206, 17500, 17535 and 17536 and provisions of the Financial Code, and seeking injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties and costs. The action was resolved by consent judgment after what the judgment describes as 'active litigation, including discovery and motion practice.'
View the record ↗ -
Regulator State of Washington v. Freedom Debt Relief (Attorney General settlement) See disposition
DispositionNegotiated settlement submitted to King County Superior Court. Express non-admission: the company denied the state's allegations and maintained that the Washington Debt Adjusting Act does not apply to its business model.
The Washington Attorney General alleged that Freedom Debt Relief sometimes charged consumers more than the state's Debt Adjusting Act allows, took its fees before the time permitted by the statute, and failed to adequately inform some consumers about how the program works; the settlement provided refunds and barred new Washington enrollments without specified notification. The AG stated the refund program would be administered through the then-pending class action Carlsen v. Freedom Debt Relief, LLC, No. CV-09-00055-LRS (E.D. Wash.).
View the record ↗
Claims we could not verify, and therefore do not state as fact: “The New York County Supreme Court index number for the 2020 NYAG proceeding” (ag.ny.gov consent order PDF); “The King County Superior Court cause number for the 2011 Washington AG settlement/consent decree” (atg.wa.gov press release); “$1.1 million in refunds and $100,000 in penalties under the 2011 New York Assurance of Discontinuance” (ag.ny.gov 2020 press release); “The FDIC 'found' Cross River Bank and FFAM violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, TILA and EFTA” (FDIC press release PR-18-021 and secondary trade coverage); “Final dispositions of Estrella (3:09-cv-03156-SI), Carlsen (2:09-cv-00055-LRS), Josey (3:24-cv-04130), McGonigle (3:25-cv-05426), Laney (1:22-cv-00708) and Garcia (2:26-cv-03077)” (CourtListener RECAP docket index). Each appears online with no court, caption, or docket behind it. We list them so you know we looked.
Court records are public and they change. A filed complaint contains allegations, not findings, and a case appearing here is not a conclusion that the company did anything wrong. Where a case ended, we say how it ended. Where we could not confirm a docket, we say that too. One limit worth knowing: free docket sources show only what someone has already paid to fetch, so a case we describe as open may have been resolved since the date shown against it. Treat every date here as the last time the record was refreshed, not as today. Last verified August 24, 2026.