Riverside Payments Lawsuit: Menten Case and Merchant Complaints

A Riverside Payments lawsuit reached federal court in early 2025 — Menten v. Riverside Payments, Inc. et al. — but it was voluntarily dismissed within weeks, and no class action or government enforcement action against the Vancouver, Washington-based credit card processor has been publicly identified. What does exist is a large and consistent record of merchant complaints alleging misleading sales pitches, undisclosed 48-month equipment leases through third-party lessors, and a $695 early termination fee that merchants say was never mentioned before they signed.

The Menten Federal Lawsuit

In February 2025, a breach-of-contract case captioned Menten v. Riverside Payments, Inc. et al. (Case No. 6:25-cv-00336) landed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon after being removed from Coos County Circuit Court. Plaintiff Brian Menten was represented by attorney Stephen Choi. The defendants — Riverside Payments, Cascade Equipment Leasing LLC, and TimePayment Corp. — were all represented by Chad M. Colton.¹

Riverside removed the case on February 27, 2025, citing diversity jurisdiction. One day later, Menten filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, and the case was terminated on March 13, 2025. The docket does not state a reason for the dismissal. A voluntary dismissal shortly after removal can reflect a private settlement, but the record here does not confirm that.¹

The lineup of defendants echoes what merchants describe in complaints: Riverside as the processor sued alongside a separate equipment leasing company.

The Turtle Restaurant Demand Letter

An earlier reported dispute involved The Turtle Restaurant in Brownwood, Texas. In March 2017, KTXS reported that owner Mary Stanley had been contacted by a Riverside telemarketer in late November 2016 who promised her $15,000 in savings over four years on credit card processing fees. Stanley signed a contract but said she never received a copy.²

When credit card equipment arrived in December, Stanley returned it and asked for a refund. After she issued a stop payment through her bank, she received a letter from the Law Offices of Mark Sampath, representing Riverside, demanding a settlement by February 15, 2017, or she would face a lawsuit for nearly $15,000. As of the KTXS report, no civil lawsuit had been filed in Washington state court. Riverside declined to comment beyond saying it was “in litigation” with Stanley.²

What Merchants Are Alleging

Beyond the courtroom, the volume of complaints is substantial. The Better Business Bureau lists 262 complaints filed against Riverside Payments over the preceding three years as of mid-2026, with 72 closed in the most recent 12 months. Riverside holds a BBB “A” rating but is not BBB-accredited.³⁴ On CardPaymentOptions, the company carries a 1.2-out-of-5-star rating across 49 reports, 47 of them one star.⁵

The complaints cluster around a few recurring themes.

Sales promises that don’t appear in the paperwork. Merchants say representatives promised lower rates than competitors, guaranteed savings, free equipment, no long-term contracts, and seamless integration with existing software. After signing, they say those assurances weren’t in the written agreements.³

Undisclosed 48-month equipment leases. A frequent allegation is that merchants weren’t told their processing agreement also triggered a separate 48-month, non-cancelable equipment lease handled by a third-party leasing company such as Cascade Equipment Leasing or Finova. Monthly lease payments reportedly run as high as $190, meaning a merchant could pay upward of $9,000 over the life of the lease for hardware that retails for a few hundred dollars.⁶

Hidden and recurring fees. Merchants report charges they say were never disclosed at sign-up: a $695 early termination fee, an annual compliance fee of roughly $99, a monthly “reg product” fee of about $9.95, a $25 monthly minimum, and a $5 statement fee. Some allege they were billed for equipment they never received.⁵³

Cancellation obstacles. Merchants often describe being unable to reach the cancellation department, enduring phone chains and stalling tactics, or being told to speak with a retention specialist who never calls back. Even after formal cancellation requests, some merchants say debits kept hitting their bank accounts, sometimes under changing company names that obscured the source.⁷

In its BBB responses, Riverside generally maintains that its agreements are “properly executed” and “valid and enforceable,” denies deceptive or predatory conduct, and directs merchants to contact its support team rather than granting the refunds requested. When equipment leases are at issue, the company frequently states it lacks authority to cancel or forgive obligations managed by a third-party lessor.³

The Contract Structure Behind the Disputes

Riverside does not publish processing rates or standard contract terms on its website, which review sites have flagged as a transparency issue.⁴ Most of what is publicly known about the terms comes from merchant complaints and Riverside’s responses to them.

The $695 early termination fee is the most widely cited figure. Riverside has confirmed the fee in BBB responses, though it isn’t referenced on the company’s public site.⁴ Equipment leases, labeled “non-cancelable,” run up to 48 months and are held by third parties. Merchants report that these leases carry personal guarantees, so the signer remains individually liable even if the underlying business closes.⁶ Multiple merchants have alleged that Riverside sales representatives described the lease paperwork as something other than a binding long-term obligation, or that they were rushed through signing without time to read it.⁵

The dual-contract structure is itself a flashpoint. Because the processing agreement is with Riverside while the equipment lease is with a separate leasing company, a merchant who cancels processing can still owe years of lease payments to a third party. Riverside cites this split to argue it cannot resolve equipment-related complaints. Merchants respond that the arrangement was never explained and that the same Riverside sales representative handled both agreements.³

Regulatory Context

Riverside Payments has not been the subject of a publicly reported enforcement action by the Federal Trade Commission or a state attorney general. The types of allegations merchants raise, however, closely resemble conduct federal regulators have targeted at other companies in the industry.

In 2013, the FTC charged Merchant Services Direct LLC and associated parties with using deceptive tactics to sell card processing services to small businesses, alleging that agents misrepresented binding equipment leases as mere “applications,” promised free terminals and penalty-free cancellation, and quoted low per-transaction costs while hiding additional fees. The Washington State Attorney General filed a parallel action in Spokane County Superior Court.⁸

In July 2022, the FTC settled with First American Payment Systems, Eliot Management Group, and Think Point Financial for $4.9 million after alleging that sales agents promised merchants no early termination fees and guaranteed savings that never materialized. The FTC also alleged the defendants continued debiting merchant bank accounts after termination and disguised the charges by changing the company names appearing on withdrawals.⁸ Those FTC allegations describe conduct similar to what merchants report about Riverside, but Riverside itself has not faced comparable government action.

If You Have a Dispute With Riverside Payments

Two features of the contract structure shape what your options look like. First, if your complaint involves the equipment, the counterparty is likely a separate leasing company such as Cascade Equipment Leasing, Finova, or TimePayment, and Riverside has taken the position in BBB responses that it cannot cancel or forgive those obligations. Read both agreements to identify who holds each contract. Second, the $695 early termination fee is real and confirmed by Riverside, even though it isn’t posted publicly.

Merchants have pursued disputes through BBB complaints, through state court (as in the Menten case, which was later removed to federal court), and through demand-letter exchanges with Riverside’s outside counsel. As of mid-2026, no public regulatory action or class-action lawsuit against Riverside Payments has been identified in available records.³

1
PACER Monitor. Menten v Riverside Payments, Inc et al
2
KTXS. Brownwood Restaurant Faces Potential Suit Over Credit Card Fees
3
Better Business Bureau. Riverside Payments Inc Complaints
4
CardFellow. Riverside Payments Review
5
CardPaymentOptions. Riverside Payments Review
6
PaymentPop. Riverside Payments Reviews
7
Better Business Bureau. Riverside Payments Inc Complaints
8
Federal Trade Commission. FTC Charges Marketers Deceiving Small Businesses Buying Credit/Debit Card Processing Services