← Back to News
Fraud

Processor Humboldt to pay $12M over sham merchants’ chargebacks

The FTC says Humboldt Merchant Services processed for 1,000-plus shell merchants whose chargebacks ran almost 10 times the card brands’ threshold. A consultant flagged the problem in 2015; the accounts ran until 2023.

Networks mentioned

The Federal Trade Commission on September 8, 2026, sued Humboldt Merchant Services in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and filed a settlement at the same time. Under the proposed order, Humboldt will pay $12 million for consumer redress and is permanently banned from boarding four categories of merchants. The company neither admits nor denies the allegations.

🔑
Almost 10 times the limit
According to the FTC, the accounts at issue typically ran chargeback rates almost 10 times higher than what the card brands consider excessive. The signal was not faint, ambiguous, or expensive to produce. It was nearly tenfold over the line.

More than 1,000 shell accounts fronted for billing scams

Humboldt is the trade name of 5967 Ventures, based in Tempe, Arizona, with an affiliated office in Troy, Michigan. It is an independent sales organization (ISO) that specializes in payment acceptance for online gambling and adult entertainment, two sectors the card networks classify as high risk. The FTC alleges it processed payments for more than 1,000 sham merchant accounts: shell entities that served as fronts for unauthorized billing schemes. American Banker puts the volume processed from 2021 through 2023 at more than $100 million. The frauds included Legion Media, which the FTC shut down in 2024.

1,000+
sham merchant accounts
FTC
$100M+
processed from 2021 through 2023
American Banker
$12M
paid for consumer redress
FTC
Empty courtroom with wooden benches and a judge’s bench
The settlement was filed in federal court for the Eastern District of Michigan and takes effect only once the judge approves it.

The warning came in 2015

An acquirer monitors each merchant’s chargeback rate because it carries the risk: if the merchant disappears, the acquirer refunds the cardholder. The ratio is calculated continuously and compared with network thresholds, and breaching them triggers monitoring programs that everyone in the industry knows.

That is what makes this case instructive: detection worked. American Banker reports that a consulting firm working for the sponsor bank flagged an abnormal concentration of disputes as early as 2015. In the first quarter of that year, Humboldt’s “Performance Marketing” business accounted for 25% of its processing volume and 66% of its chargeback volume. The problem accounts kept running until 2023.

⚠️
BMO is not a defendant
The sponsor bank, BMO Harris, tied to Humboldt by an agreement dating to December 2009, is not a defendant and is not accused of any wrongdoing. It appears in the case because of its sponsorship role and the 2015 warning, not as a target.

Economics, not technology, explain the eight-year gap

Eight years separate a signal seen in 2015 from accounts closed in 2023. The reason is not technical. A merchant with a high chargeback rate is also a high-fee merchant: high-risk sectors pay more, and on paper that margin covers the cost of disputes. Closing a profitable account on the strength of a ratio takes a decision that profitability discourages.

  • the acquirer measures the chargeback ratio, and it is also the party collecting the fees;
  • network monitoring programs impose fines, not terminations;
  • a merchant dropped by one acquirer finds another, often another high-risk specialist;
  • and a shell company is cheap to replace, which spreads the ratio across fresh accounts.

That last point explains why a thousand accounts were opened rather than one. Spreading a fraudulent flow across many new accounts keeps each one below the thresholds that would trigger an alert. The technique is well known, and the ban targets it directly.

The ban is written by merchant category

The permanent ban is drafted as a list of merchant categories, and that drafting is the most useful part of the settlement for anyone who works in merchant acquiring.

CategoryWhat it covers
Straw companiesshell entities fronting for a third party
Merchants on Mastercard’s MATCH listlisted for excessive chargebacks, laundering, or fraud
Merchants subject to law enforcement actionthose an authority has already pursued
E-commerce sites whose only address is a mailbox providerthat are new, have no processing history, or use negative option billing
The four merchant categories Humboldt is now barred from processing for

The second row deserves a second look. The MATCH list (Mastercard Alert to Control High-Risk Merchants), run by Mastercard , records merchants terminated by an acquirer for serious cause. It has existed for decades, any acquirer can query it, and checking it is already standard practice. The FTC is not asking for a new tool. It is turning a check that was left to commercial judgment into an obligation.

Judge’s gavel on a desk in front of case files
“Humboldt was processing payments for companies despite red flags indicating they were scamming consumers,” said Katherine White, deputy director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

For the rest of the market, the lesson is organizational more than legal. The case describes a failure of consequence, not of detection. As long as the decision to close an account rests with whoever earns the fees on it, the signal can be perfect and still go unheeded for eight years.

Provenance

Published September 8, 2026

4 sources, 4 distinct domains

↗ Federal Trade Commission, FTC Takes Action Against Payment Processor Humboldt Merchant Services for Knowingly Facilitating Payment Processing for Sham Merchants · ftc.gov↗ FTC, Humboldt stipulated order (PDF) · search.ftc.gov↗ American Banker, BMO payments partner to pay $12M for serving shell companies · americanbanker.com↗ Payments Dive, Processor pays $12M to settle 'sham' merchant case · paymentsdive.com
← All news