Beyond the Gavel:
Defending the Captive Consumer

Guardianship does not become predatory by accident. It becomes predatory by design.

A network of court-appointed guardians, lawyers, non-profit organizations, hospital systems, attorneys, physicians, and referral networks has built a closed-loop system in which vulnerable adults are steered toward full guardianship — bypassing less-restrictive alternatives — while their assets are systematically extracted under the color of law. The person under guardianship is, in the language of consumer protection, a captive consumer: legally stripped of the power to negotiate, switch providers, or say no.

Donald Cressy (1969) observed that organized criminal enterprises succeed in part by infiltrating legitimate business — using the authority and cover of lawful institutions to conduct unlawful activity. The professional guardianship network exemplifies that model: court appointments provide legal authority, professional licenses provide institutional cover, and the system’s opacity provides the protection from scrutiny that any criminal enterprise requires. The result is what consumer protection law calls a captive consumer market — one in which the person subject to guardianship has been legally stripped of the power to negotiate, switch providers, or say no.

When these relationships are coordinated and sustained for financial gain, they are not merely unethical. They are, in the language of federal law, racketeering.

This essay examines the machinery behind the crisis and the federal enforcement framework — the FTC, CFPB, DOJ, and others — that has the authority to dismantle it.

From Safeguard to Industry

Guardianship was designed as a last resort: a legal mechanism of genuine protection for the genuinely incapacitated, invoked only when every less-restrictive alternative had been considered and found insufficient. What it has become, in too many jurisdictions, is something else entirely: a recurring revenue model for a professional class of guardians, attorneys, evaluators, and affiliated service providers whose financial interests are structurally aligned with expansion rather than restraint.

The person under guardianship is not a client in any meaningful sense. They cannot choose their guardian, negotiate their fees, or seek a second opinion. They cannot fire a guardian who is exploiting them without the cooperation of the same court that appointed the guardian in the first place. They cannot access their own funds to retain independent counsel. In every respect that matters to consumer protection law, they are captive — locked into a commercial relationship they did not choose, cannot exit, and are legally prevented from challenging on equal terms.

This is the market failure that Section 5 of the FTC Act was designed to address: unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The guardianship market is not exempt from that authority. It is, in fact, one of its most compelling applications.

The Exit Ramp: Supported Decision-Making

Before examining the enforcement framework, it is worth naming what should have happened instead. Supported decision-making  (ACL) — a model in which a person retains their legal rights while receiving assistance from trusted supporters in making and communicating decisions — is the less-restrictive alternative that guardianship proceedings are legally required to consider and too frequently ignore.

Supported decision-making is not a theoretical aspiration. It is an operational reality in multiple states, recognized in federal disability rights law, and endorsed by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as the appropriate default response to cognitive vulnerability. When a guardianship proceeding bypasses it without genuine consideration — when the professional network steers a vulnerable adult toward full guardianship because full guardianship is more lucrative than a supported decision-making agreement — that is not merely a procedural failure. It is an anticompetitive act: the suppression of a less-restrictive and less-expensive alternative in order to capture a more profitable market. 

$56 Trillion and No Consumer Protections

Americans 70 and older hold more than $56 trillion in household wealth — nearly a third of the nation’s total assets that represent the accumulated savings, property, and investments of a lifetime. This concentration of wealth in an aging population that is increasingly vulnerable to cognitive decline and social isolation represents, in the language of market analysis, an extraordinary opportunity for exploitation.

The professional guardianship industry has recognized that opportunity. What it has not faced is the consumer protection infrastructure that governs every other industry in which fiduciaries manage other people’s money. Investment advisors are regulated by the SEC. Bank trustees are regulated by federal banking authorities. Insurance fiduciaries are regulated by state insurance commissioners. Professional guardians — who can control the entirety of a person’s estate, their residence, their medical decisions, and their social relationships — operate in a regulatory environment that, in most states, amounts to periodic court filings that are rarely audited and almost never independently verified.

The gap between the scale of the assets at risk and the adequacy of the oversight is not a regulatory oversight. It is a market failure — one with a measurable human cost and a documented pattern of exploitation.

The Systemic Threat

The captive consumer problem in guardianship is not merely a collection of individual bad actors. It is a systemic condition produced by structural incentives that reward exploitation and penalize intervention — and its scale is now documented.

The Federal Trade Commission’s Protecting Older Consumers 2024–2025 report puts numbers to what advocates have long known: reported fraud losses among older adults reached $2.4 billion in 2024, with total estimated costs of exploitation potentially reaching $81.5 billion. The FTC identifies the same deceptive architectures across multiple forms of elder exploitation — isolation, information asymmetry, and the stripping of consumer choice. In predatory guardianship, those architectures are not merely present. They are legally institutionalized.

Anti-competitive steering — the practice of directing vulnerable adults toward full guardianship rather than less-restrictive alternatives — is facilitated by referral networks that connect hospital discharge planners, social workers, attorneys, and professional guardians in closed loops invisible to the person being steered. Drip pricing — the practice of charging fees that accumulate over time without upfront disclosure — is endemic to professional guardianship billing. In 2026, the FTC has made total price transparency a centerpiece of its enforcement, cracking down on junk fees that obscure the true cost of goods. Yet while regulators pursue hidden surcharges in hotel bills and concert tickets, the guardianship sector remains rife with unavoidable fees that function as a predatory bait-and-switch — layered fiduciary rates and clerical charges billed against the ward’s estate without the disclosure required in any other industry. This is not merely bad service. It is a deceptive trade practice that exploits a lack of market exit.

The non-profit nexus compounds the problem. Many predatory pipelines begin with non-profit guardianship organizations that present themselves as neutral charitable advisors while functioning as de facto commercial brokers, steering vulnerable seniors into closed-loop systems of preferred for-profit guardians and affiliated vendors. This steering creates a jurisdictional complexity — but under the pecuniary benefit test and the 2019 Memorandum of Understanding between the FTC and CFPB, regulators have the authority to look past the tax-exempt label. When a non-profit exists primarily to provide financial benefit to its commercial partners — by fast-tracking plenary guardianship while omitting less-restrictive alternatives — it is no longer acting as a charity. It is engaging in a deceptive trade practice that demands federal intervention.

Three Interlocking Watchdogs

The federal enforcement framework for addressing the captive consumer market in guardianship is not a single agency. It is a network of authorities whose jurisdictions, taken together, cover the full range of conduct that predatory guardianship involves. Three agencies are central — and they are not parallel tracks. They are interlocking gears, and guardianship reform requires all three turning in concert.

The Federal Trade Commission has authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to address unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. Anti-competitive steering, undisclosed fee structures, and the suppression of less-restrictive alternatives are each independently actionable under that authority. The FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection has addressed comparable market failures in other fiduciary industries. The guardianship market presents a more urgent case.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5531 to address unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in connection with consumer financial products and services. Guardianship, when it involves the management of a person's financial assets, is precisely the kind of relationship the CFPB's authority was designed to govern.

Guardianship, when it involves the management of a person’s financial assets, is precisely the kind of relationship the CFPB’s authority was designed to govern. The CFPB’s look-through authority — its power to reach the conduct of service providers who operate through regulated entities — is directly applicable to the vendor relationships that professional guardians maintain with banks, investment managers, and other financial institutions through which ward assets are managed and, in some cases, extracted. The FTC and CFPB operate under a coordinated enforcement framework — the 2019 Memorandum of Understanding referenced above — designed to prevent duplication and maximize their combined investigatory reach. By working together, they can scrutinize both the initial deceptive marketing of guardianship services and the subsequent extractive management of the assets themselves.

The Look-Through

The CFPB’s look-through authority deserves particular attention because it addresses the most common defense of predatory guardianship: that the financial exploitation is conducted through lawful transactions that are individually authorized by the court.

That defense is true as far as it goes. Each transaction — each fee payment, each asset sale, each transfer — may be individually authorized. What the look-through authority addresses is the pattern: the cumulative conduct of a service provider across multiple transactions, multiple clients, and multiple relationships that, taken together, constitutes an abusive practice even if each individual transaction is technically compliant. The CFPB was designed precisely to address this kind of systematic financial exploitation — the exploitation that hides in the aggregation of individually defensible acts.

The Power to Prosecute

The United States Department of Justice brings a dimension to this fight that neither the FTC nor the CFPB can provide alone: the power to prosecute. Through its Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch, the DOJ maintains direct enforcement authority over financial fraud targeting older Americans — authority that extends beyond the FTC’s civil mandate into criminal prosecution. Its Elder Justice Initiative maintains a national network of elder justice coordinators — Assistant United States Attorneys designated in every federal judicial district, trained in elder abuse, financial exploitation, and the intersection of both. Its Criminal Division includes a dedicated money laundering and asset recovery section. These are not hypothetical resources. They exist, they are funded, and they are authorized to move.

The FBI’s White Collar Crime Units are a natural enforcement anchor for guardianship fraud — involving embezzlement, money laundering, conspiracy, and in some cases the interstate movement of vulnerable persons — which falls squarely within their jurisdiction. The legal theories are not novel. The investigative tools are in place. Referrals from the FTC and CFPB to DOJ’s White Collar Crime units are not unprecedented; they are, in the most egregious cases of predatory guardianship, the appropriate and proportionate response. The existence of a court-issued guardianship order does not immunize commercial conduct from criminal scrutiny — it never has.

Guardianship fraud, when coordinated across multiple cases by a network of attorneys, guardians, and affiliated service providers, meets the definition of a racketeering enterprise under 18 U.S. Code § 1961. The RICO statute was designed for exactly this kind of conduct: a pattern of criminal activity conducted through a legitimate institutional structure, sustained over time, and insulated from accountability by the same legal mechanisms that authorize it.

The Non-Profit Nexus

One of the most underexamined features of the professional guardianship industry is its extensive use of non-profit organizational structures. Non-profit guardianship organizations receive government funding through Medicaid, through the Older Americans Act, and through state and local elder care systems. They enjoy tax exemptions, reputational advantages, and regulatory deference that for-profit organizations do not receive. And in many cases, they operate commercial fiduciary services — managing ward assets, billing hourly for services, and generating surpluses distributed through executive compensation and organizational overhead rather than shareholder dividends.

The non-profit nexus is not inherently corrupt. Many non-profit guardianship organizations operate with genuine commitment to the people they serve. But the structural features of non-profit status — its opacity, its regulatory deference, its access to public funding — make it an ideal cover for organized exploitation. Under the pecuniary benefit test and the 2024 Memorandum of Understanding between the FTC and CFPB, regulators have the authority to look past the tax-exempt label. DOJ Elder Justice Coordinators add a further layer of scrutiny: when steering conduct involves deliberate misrepresentation to families or courts — particularly when it results in the systematic diversion of assets to commercial partners — it may constitute the kind of scheme-to-defraud that federal prosecutors are specifically trained to pursue. Federal enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over non-profit conduct — including the IRS, the DOJ, and state attorneys general — have not yet applied that jurisdiction systematically to the guardianship context. That must change.

A National Standard

The captive consumer problem in guardianship will not be resolved by state-level reform alone. Fifty separate guardianship systems, each with its own rules and its own record of failure, cannot produce the national consumer protection standard that the scale of the problem demands. Federal action is required — not to displace state jurisdiction over guardianship proceedings, but to establish the minimum consumer protection standards that every state system must meet.

At minimum, those standards should require: transparent, competitive fee structures for professional guardians and their affiliated service providers; independent financial auditing of the estates of persons subject to guardianship; mandatory consideration of less-restrictive alternatives, with documented reasons for rejection; independent counsel for persons subject to guardianship proceedings, funded separately from the ward’s estate; and a national registry of professional guardians that includes disciplinary history, prior complaints, and the number and value of estates currently under management.

These are not radical propositions. They are the minimum conditions for a consumer protection regime adequate to the market it governs. The federal authority to require them exists. What has been missing is the institutional will to use it.

The authority exists. The legal theory is established. The captive consumer is waiting.

Sources  

18 U.S. Code § 1961 — Definitions (RICO).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961

Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5531 (prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5531  

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
https://www.consumerfinance.gov

Donald R. Cressey, Theft of the Nation: The Structure and Operations of Organized Crime in America(Harper and Row, 1969).
https://search.worldcat.org/title/958

Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Collar Crime.
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime

Federal Reserve, Financial Accounts of the United States (Z.1).
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/z1/balance_sheet/chart/

Federal Trade Commission. (2025). Protecting older consumers 2024–2025.
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/P144400-OlderAdultsReportDec2025.pdf

Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45 (Section 5).
https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/federal-trade-commission-act    

Memorandum of Understanding Between the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission (February 2019, most recently reauthorized). https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cooperation-agreements/ftc-cfpb-interagency-cooperation-agreement

Older Americans Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-73, 79 Stat. 218 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 3001–3058ff). https://acl.gov/about-acl/authorizing-statutes/older-americans-act

U.S. Department of Justice, Elder Justice Initiative. https://www.justice.gov/elderjustice

U.S. Department of Justice, Elder Justice Initiative, Guardianship.
https://www.justice.gov/elderjustice/guardianship

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Art. 12 (Equal recognition before the law).
https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html

U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Consumer Protection Branch.
https://www.justice.gov/civil/consumer-protection-branch

Image: City of Rocks State Park, NM