Four letters have been the uninvited guest to many people’s phone bills, including some in St. Joseph.

Enhanced Services Billing, or ESBI, has been the target of the Federal Trade Commission for years after putting allegedly unauthorized charges on the phone bills of unsuspecting customers, a practice otherwise known as “cramming.”

The problem: ESBI, which also goes by the name BSG Clearing Solutions, isn’t the company doing the actual charging.

The San Antonio-based company acts like a middle-man, known as a billing aggregator, that sends along the charge from vendors for the phone companies to place on its customers’ bills.

ESBI has received its share of grief, from being sued by the Federal Trade Commission in 2001 to a continuing number of complaints received by the Missouri Attorney General.

“We have numerous complaints against ESBI ... We are investigating the complaints received and are looking further into third party practices,” Chris Roark, a spokesperson for Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, said.

One person using her voice to rail against the company is Jessica Ruden, of St. Joseph. For eight months, her elderly grandparents were being billed $19.99 per month by the “E-Mail Discount Network,” a company that bills through ESBI.

“Their phone bill was near $80 and we said ‘You might want to check that out, that sounds wrong,’” Ms. Ruden said.

After a phone call to the company, Ms. Ruden said a representative claimed her grandfather had signed up through the Internet, but they would cancel their membership and refund some of the money.

“I said my grandpa barely knows how to use a computer,” she said.

After calling their provider, AT&T, she was informed they could use third party blocking to avoid any further charges,

“I just don’t understand why they would allow them to do that in the first place,” Ms. Ruden said.

The answer is simple, yet complicated. Marisa Giller, AT&T representative for Missouri, said the phone company has a contract with third party companies such as ESBI. The agreement allows them to charge customers for services ranging from credit protection to charitable contributions.

“The vast majority of vendors adhere to our strict guidelines in doing business with our customers. That said, AT&T can and will discipline any vendors that bill inappropriate charges to our customers — including imposing fines, or even terminating the billing relationship,” she said, in an e-mail.

For AT&T to continue to keep a contract with a company that has received numerous complaints is troubling, it seems shady, Ms. Ruden said. Others agree that it’s a concern.

“Billing aggregators have had us concerned for years about the measures they’re taking to make sure they’re dealing with legitimate companies,” Bob Schoshinski, staff attorney at the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection, said.

While the FTC and Missouri Attorney General continue to investigate billing aggregators such as ESBI, customers can do their part as well.

Ignorance is the key to more money when it comes to “crammers.” The longer a person continues to pay their phone bill and ignore excess charges, the more the scamming company stands to make.

“Most consumers never even notice these charges and sometimes pay for years. When complaints are submitted to the business, they always refund the charges, but usually only the last 90 days,” Ms. Roark said.

There’s no right way for a customer to protect themselves from getting crammed outside of keeping up on the charges on their phone bills.

“There are a variety of ways these scam artists can create something out of nothing. Sometimes it’s obtained through deception ... Sometimes there’s no disclosure when they’re filling something out that they’re going to be charged,” Mr. Schoshinski said.

If there are charges on a phone bill that appear to be unauthorized, the customer is asked to first call their phone company to dispute the charge then file complaints with the attorney general and FTC.

“Let us know this is going on because that is how we know and because that is the way we take action,” Mr. Schoshinski said.

It’s exactly what Ms. Ruden did and a little more. After her grandparents were billed, she made calls to the building owners that house the E-Mail Discount Network saying she wanted to set up an illegal business like the one that already exists. When they declined, she contacted local authorities.

“They said they had received complaints of the business before, but they couldn’t do anything besides take a statement,” she said.

For now, Ms. Ruden wants to make sure third party companies don’t make another dime off of unsuspecting customers.

“My hope is everyone checks their bills,” she said.

Andrew Gaug can be reached at andrew.gaug@newspressnow.com.