Questions for Premium Merchant Funding.
Being removed from one marketing list may stop one source of calls. It does not, by itself, explain who has an application, why the same file was mentioned by multiple outsiders, or how downstream sharing is controlled.
Seven factual questions.
These are questions I believe should be answerable from ordinary application, consent and distribution records. They are not accusations that specific records exist or that wrongdoing occurred.
What did I actually authorize?
Please identify the exact version of the application presented at submission, including each separately selectable marketing option and recorded state, the signed authorization and applicable policy revisions.
Who received my application?
Which organizations received any part of my application, statements or contact information, and when? What information went to each?
Were actual statement files transmitted?
Did any intermediary or lender receive copies of the redacted PDFs rather than an underwriting summary? If so, were the recipients allowed to copy, store or forward them?
What onward distribution was allowed?
What contracts, technical permissions or retention rules applied to further sharing by recipients, brokers, affiliates or marketing vendors?
How are stop-contact requests implemented?
What steps were taken after my opt-outs? Were related partners informed, or would I have to contact each outside sender independently?
How do the policy and application fit together?
How should an applicant understand PMF's published mobile-data privacy commitment alongside the financing application’s broader information-sharing language?
What records can be preserved or corrected?
Can the relevant parties preserve application versions, consent logs, access and transmission histories, recipient identities and removal records pending any legitimate review?
What would resolve my central concern?
A documented description of which parties received my records, what permission they relied on, and how further unwanted marketing will be limited. A general response saying “we removed your number” would leave the data question unanswered.
A right of reply and a correction policy.
This is an independent first-person report, and it should be accurate even where the evidence is incomplete.
PMFUS and other involved businesses are invited to respond
A substantive response identifying factual errors, providing context or explaining data-sharing procedures will be considered for inclusion with clear attribution. The publisher can receive a response through the correspondence channel already established with the business.
Relevant and verifiable corrections will be posted with an update date. This site will not publish sensitive bank records, nonpublic identity information or unedited call recordings in the name of transparency.
What a correction should identify
The specific passage, the proposed correction, why it is inaccurate, and any supporting documentation that can safely be reviewed.
This is not a submission form; the static site does not receive or store visitor messages. The publisher can add a dedicated, protected corrections mailbox later if desired.
No pre-judgment
Nothing on this site claims that a court or regulator has found liability, that a particular person is a harasser, or that the BBB or PMFUS manipulated any rating. Published allegations from third parties remain attributed to their original speakers.