T1 Payments is a merchant service provider founded in 2010 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The current CEO is Donald Kasdon and T1 Payments is one of the few providers specializing in providing payment processing to high-risk merchants. However, their reputation is mixed, which we discuss in this T1 Payments review.
High-risk merchants often face many chargebacks and refunds that adversely affect their provider, so many processors avoid them. T1 Payments specializes in the high-risk sector and provides processing to merchants in high-risk businesses, including debt consolidation and cannabis. To learn more about the offerings and details of the provider, keep reading this review.
T1 Payments allows merchants to process payments through most modern payment methods and almost all credit card organizations. They provide essential business tools such as mobile payments, management tools, chargeback prevention, fraud protection, and other vital features. Here is a review of two of their primary services:
Payment gateways are essential for businesses, especially if they deal in online transactions, payments through the phone, or mail orders. The payment gateway provided by T1 is pretty standard based on other gateways in the processing industry and has several online payment modes, including recurring billing and a robust reporting structure.
This is one of the more significant offerings by T1 payments. Most merchant service providers do not offer exchanges in multiple currencies based on reviews, but this is a beneficial feature for high-risk merchants. High-risk businesses tend to operate internationally, and the T1 payment gateway allows merchants to receive payments worldwide in more than 160 currencies. They also provide value-added features to enhance the international transaction process for merchants.
Their advertising and marketing processes are strong as they utilize all avenues to promote themselves. Even though they do not disclose their prices and terms on the internet, they have an internal sales team that handles their clients directly. Their prices and offerings are only disclosed to merchants that proceed with their onboarding process.
But amongst the avenues they utilize, they also use independent sales agents to promote their services. Using independent sales agents is a bad sign for a processor, as it means that they are having trouble acquiring clients. The sales tactics and unethical practices of ISOs lead to a few complaints about the provider.
T1 Payments has been the center of many legal problems in its history. While legal troubles are not a review of their products and services, they must be covered in a T1 Payments review. Studying legal issues can help merchants judge whether providers will engage in deceptive tactics.
T1 faced major lawsuits in 2016, both as a plaintiff and defendant. Both these lawsuits were against Dermaktive. Dermaktive filed a lawsuit against T1, claiming T1 stole millions of dollars from their business. At the same time, T1 complained that they breached their merchant contract by defrauding their clients. These lawsuits have not yet been resolved.
In 2017, Vantiv filed a lawsuit against the provider. The complaint was not disclosed, but it did reveal that T1 Payments is an ISO of Atlanta-Pacific Processing Systems in some capacity. This is the only resolved lawsuit against the company.
T1 Payments received a barrage of lawsuits against them in 2020 and 2021. Here is a brief review of the major suits against the provider:
Diamond CBD sued the processor concerning suddenly quitting the Kratom Business and withholding more than $649,311 in funds. Allegations of fraud and violation of state law are, amongst several others, filed by Diamond CBD.
The company sued the provider over a breach of contract and $204,859 in withheld funds. This lawsuit aligns with T1’s reputation of leaving high-risk clients without proper notification and against their contract.
Beyond Wealth is an MLM company, and it requires processing services. Payvision was not allowed to act as an acquirer in the U.K., so T1 Payments allegedly established TGlobal Services Ltd, which got into an agreement with Payvision in 2015/2016. T1 payments represented itself as a registered payment facilitator in the U.K. Later it was found out that T1 was, in fact, not registered, and Payvision was conducting the processing. With a balance of $4 million in their account, T1 Payments canceled Beyond Wealth’s account, so Beyond Wealth sued T1 and Payvision for theft and fraud.
While many merchants would quit on T1 Payments after reading the long list of legal history they have, there are some serious problems with their services as well. Here are common issues with T1 based on customer reviews:
While the company offers a month-to-month contract and interchange-plus pricing to their regular, low-risk clients, it is not valid for high-risk merchants. High-risk merchants often face substantial cash reserves and a hefty early termination fee.
There is a considerable discrepancy in the services provided to standard merchants and high-risk merchants. In a lawsuit against Dermaktive, the company took around $867,135 in liquidated damages. While they claim that $119,119 was chargebacks racked up by Dermaktive, a fee of $600,000 for termination of the contract is unheard of in the industry.
The complaints about the company are increasing rapidly, claiming that the company is a rip-off and talks of sudden account holds amongst several other complaints. Complaints claim that their customer support cannot be contacted. They were given a two-day notice before their account was closed with a considerable sum of money withheld. All of these complaints testify to the lawsuits that the company is involved in.
The company has too many negative aspects compared to the positive ones, as seen in this T1 Payments review. While their services for high-risk merchants are adequate, the terms and pricing make them unfeasible. Not so long ago, the provider was considered an average one, but with the overwhelming influx of complaints, it is now amongst the worst ones in the industry. The provider should be avoided at all costs.