Short answer
Biz2Credit is a real, operating small business finance company, and it is also the defendant in the largest small business lending enforcement action the Federal Trade Commission has ever brought under Section 19 of the FTC Act. In March 2024 the FTC sued Biz2Credit, Inc. and its funding subsidiary Itria Ventures LLC in the Southern District of New York over the marketing of Paycheck Protection Program loan applications, and the court entered a stipulated order carrying a $33,000,000 judgment (FTC case page, Biz2Credit, Inc., FTC v.). Biz2Credit neither admitted nor denied the allegations and has publicly said it settled with no admission of wrongdoing (Biz2Credit statement, March 18, 2024). Separately, the company's own legal page states that almost all of its customers receive Revenue-Based Financing, which it says is also known as a merchant cash advance (Biz2Credit legal disclosures). Filed complaints are allegations, not findings, and nothing below is a finding that Biz2Credit did anything unlawful.
This page summarizes what the public record shows as of August 11, 2026, with a link to each underlying document so you can read it yourself. Where the record shows an outcome, the outcome is stated in the same place as the allegation.
Company background and corporate structure
Biz2Credit, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 1 Penn Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, New York 10119 (Biz2Credit legal page). The FTC's 2024 complaint identifies it as a Delaware corporation and identifies Itria Ventures LLC as a Delaware limited liability company (FTC, Biz2Credit, Inc., FTC v.). The company describes itself as a fintech that has arranged more than $8 billion in small business financing since 2007 (company statement).
The structure matters more than it usually does, because the name on your contract is probably not the name you searched for. Three entities show up in the public record:
Biz2Credit, Inc.
is the customer-facing brand and the application platform at biz2credit.com.
Itria Ventures LLC
is the entity that actually funds and holds the financing. Biz2Credit's legal page states that Revenue-Based Financing agreements are made at the sole and final discretion of Itria Ventures LLC, and that term loans are made by Itria Ventures LLC or Cross River Bank, Member FDIC. It also discloses that Itria Ventures LLC is licensed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation under California Financing Law License number 60DBO-35839 (Biz2Credit legal page).
Biz2X
is the white label lending platform Biz2Credit licenses to banks and other institutions.
Itria Ventures LLC is also a registered filer with the Securities and Exchange Commission under CIK 0002017813, with a business address of One Penn Plaza, Suite 3101, New York. Its filing history on EDGAR consists of Form ABS-15G reports, the disclosure form filed in connection with asset-backed securitizations, filed in April 2024, August 2025, February 2026, and twice in June 2026 (SEC EDGAR, Itria Ventures LLC, CIK 0002017813). That tells you something practical: the receivables purchased from small businesses are pooled and financed in the capital markets, which is one reason the servicing and collection side of this business tends to be systematic rather than informal.
The practical takeaway for a borrower is simple. If you are researching your funder's litigation history and you search only for Biz2Credit, you will miss almost all of it. The federal docket record is filed under Itria Ventures.
The products they actually sell and how repayment works
This is the single most useful thing on Biz2Credit's website and almost nobody reads it. On its legal page, under the heading About Our Products, Biz2Credit states in its own words:
"Revenue-Based Financing is used by almost all of our customers. Revenue-Based Financing is also known as Sales-Based Financing or Merchant Cash Advance. You will see it described in our financing contract as a Receivables Sale Agreement."
The same page continues: "Revenue-Based Financing is not a loan product, so there is no fixed term and no interest rate. This product is secured via a UCC lien on your company's receivables and typically requires a performance guaranty from one or more owners of the business." Of term loans, the page says only that "a small percentage of our customers are eligible" (Biz2Credit, About Our Products).
Read those sentences together and the structure becomes clear:
You most likely did not get a loan.
You sold a fixed dollar amount of future receipts at a discount. The document is a Receivables Sale Agreement, not a promissory note.
There is no interest rate and no maturity date.
There is an Amount Sold, and payment continues until that number is reached. The cost is the gap between what you received and what you must deliver, which is why an annualized cost figure does not appear anywhere in the contract.
Repayment comes out of receipts on an agreed percentage,
which in practice means daily or weekly automated debits from your operating account.
There is a true-up or reconciliation right.
Biz2Credit's page states you "have a right of true-up/reconciliation to ensure that payments are made only from Receivables." This is the provision that in principle lets a business whose revenue has fallen have its payment adjusted downward. Whether and how that right works in practice depends entirely on the language in your specific agreement and how the funder administers it. It is worth locating that clause in your document before you do anything else.
There is a UCC lien and usually a personal performance guaranty.
The lien attaches to your receivables. The guaranty is what allows the funder to pursue an owner individually, typically where the owner is alleged to have breached the agreement rather than merely because the business underperformed.
If you are trying to understand why the payments feel unsurvivable, this is the mechanism. A fixed payback amount plus a daily debit does not flex when your revenue drops, unless the reconciliation clause is invoked and honored. We cover the general mechanics in more depth on our page about merchant cash advance relief and how these agreements differ from conventional debt.
What borrowers report
A word on sourcing before the substance. Review aggregation sites carry large volumes of Biz2Credit ratings, but their published figures conflict with one another and the platforms return access errors to automated retrieval, so no rating average or review count is cited on this page. Citing an unverified score on a page whose entire value is verifiability would defeat the purpose. What follows comes instead from complaints quoted verbatim in a federal court filing, where the source document can be opened and read.
The FTC's complaint reproduces messages that applicants sent to Biz2Credit during the Paycheck Protection Program. One wrote:
"14 days as stated on Biz2credit website. After 56 days I've yet to receive the funds nor any meaningful assistance."
Another described being unable to get out:
"I've tried emailing funding specialists, asking them to withdraw my application and notify the SBA, but they have not."
A third wrote that after applying and receiving no response, "we are in desperate need of these funds. The last time we heard from them was March 31. Since then all of our messages have gone unanswered" (FTC complaint, March 18, 2024).
Two themes run through the complaints quoted in that filing: timelines that did not match what was advertised, and difficulty reaching a human being to change or cancel an application already in the system. Those are allegations quoted by a regulator in a complaint that was resolved by settlement rather than adjudicated, and they concern a specific 2020 to 2021 government program rather than the company's ordinary merchant cash advance business. They are not a finding about how Biz2Credit treats a revenue-based financing customer today.
The legal and regulatory record
The FTC action and the $33 million judgment, 2024
On March 18, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission filed Federal Trade Commission v. Biz2Credit, Inc. and Itria Ventures LLC, Civil Action No. 24-cv-2001, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (FTC case page and docket).
According to the FTC's complaint, the defendants advertised that Paycheck Protection Program applications would be processed in an average of 10 to 14 business days, including a statement in materials sent to accountants that "new loan submissions should anticipate processing times of 12 to 14 business days from date of submission." The complaint alleges that the actual "average processing time was double what Defendants claimed, with tens of thousands of consumers waiting over two months for a final determination," and that even applicants who were approved and funded waited "on average, at least 50% longer (17 business days) than Defendants had often promised."
The complaint further alleges that "roughly 40% of Defendants' consumers had their applications cancelled or rejected (by far, the highest rate of any of the other ten largest PPP lenders), leaving them without any funding from Defendants at all," and that the defendants "designed their application process to lock in as many consumers as possible and to block those consumers from applying to other lenders" by "rapidly accepting hundreds of thousands of applications and immediately obtaining SBA E-tran numbers for those applications before engaging in any real underwriting" (FTC complaint and exhibits, PDF).
The FTC brought the case under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and under the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act.
How the case ended and what the order requires
There was no trial. On March 21, 2024, the court entered a Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Judgment, and Other Relief. The order states that "Defendants neither admit nor deny any of the allegations in the Complaint, except as specifically stated in this Order," and that only for purposes of the action do defendants admit the facts necessary to establish jurisdiction.
The order enters judgment of "Thirty Three Million Dollars ($33,000,000)" in favor of the Commission against the defendants jointly and severally. The FTC has described this and the parallel $26 million Womply settlement as the largest damages amounts it has ever secured under Section 19 of the FTC Act (FTC press release, March 18, 2024).
The injunctive terms are as substantive as the money. The order permanently restrains the defendants, in connection with advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, servicing, or offering any extension of credit, from misrepresenting the amount of time taken to approve, deny, cancel, or withdraw an application, a consumer's odds or likelihood of being approved, the current status of an application, any material fact about a government benefit, and total costs or material restrictions, limitations, or conditions. It also affirmatively requires the defendants to maintain a telephone number consumers can use to withdraw or cancel a pending application, obtain the current status of an application, or submit missing documents, with calls "answered promptly during normal business hours," and requires prompt, clear and conspicuous notice of any missing documents an applicant must provide (Stipulated Order entered by the court, PDF).
What Biz2Credit said about the settlement
Biz2Credit issued a public statement the day the case was filed, and it belongs here in full context because it is the company's own characterization of the same events.
Biz2Credit stated that during the 2021 round of the program it "processed over half a million applications and provided much-needed funding to more than 170,000 small business owners," that 47 percent of the businesses it funded were minority-owned and 32 percent were women-owned, and that the typical funded business had under three employees.
On the substance of the dispute, the company said it "compiled statistical proof demonstrating that the average processing times referenced on its website accurately reflected the experience of bona fide customers," and framed the disagreement as one about methodology: "The FTC, however, claimed that Biz2Credit's average processing time estimates should not only have taken bona fide customers into account but should also have included customers whose applications Biz2Credit reviewed and rejected as potentially fraudulent or ineligible." The company noted that it "funded only around 30% of all the applications it received in 2021" and argued that the low rate reflected fraud screening rather than poor service, pointing out that lenders were paid only on funded applications.
On why it settled, Biz2Credit said: "the unfortunate reality is that FTC actions like this are very costly to litigate. Our decision to settle rather than contest the FTC's claims in court represents a pragmatic decision to put the matter behind us with no admission of wrongdoing" (Biz2Credit Issues Statement on FTC Settlement).
Readers should weigh that. A settlement with no admission of liability is a settlement, not a verdict. The judgment is real and the injunction is real, but the allegations were never tested at trial.
The 2022 putative class action over the contract structure
This is the case that speaks most directly to merchant cash advance borrowers rather than to Paycheck Protection Program applicants, and it is important to state how it ended.
On February 8, 2022, InvenTel.tv LLC filed a proposed class action against Itria Ventures LLC and Biz2Credit in the Southern District of New York, docket 1:22-cv-01059. The docket lists the nature of suit as 470, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (CourtListener docket, InvenTel.tv LLC v. Itria Ventures LLC). According to the reported complaint, the suit alleged that the defendants fraudulently misrepresented loans as receivables purchase agreements, sought payment outside of the receivables actually purchased, and charged criminally usurious rates, citing two transactions in which roughly $244,000 advanced was repayable at $305,000 on daily payments, which the complaint characterized as annualized rates in the forties (ClassAction.org case summary and complaint).
The outcome: the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on March 2, 2022, less than a month after filing. The one page notice of dismissal states no reason (notice of voluntary dismissal, PDF). No class was ever certified, no court ruled on the merits, and none of those allegations was established as fact. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff ended its own case and nothing was decided.
The 2015 stacking dispute with Kalamata Capital
In 2015, Kalamata Capital sued Biz2Credit, Inc. and Itria Ventures, LLC, alleging among other things that Biz2Credit secretly referred Kalamata's merchants to Itria and induced those merchants to stack additional advances in breach of their agreements with Kalamata. Biz2Credit and Itria disputed the claims and moved to dismiss the tortious interference count. The court denied the motion, holding that if the alleged conduct occurred it could rise to the level of tortious interference (deBanked legal brief, October 2015).
The outcome qualifier matters, and the trade press that reported it said so explicitly: a ruling on a motion to dismiss addresses only the legal sufficiency of the allegations and does not address the merits of either party's factual assertions.
What the federal docket record contains
A search of the CourtListener and RECAP federal docket archive for cases with "Itria Ventures" in the case name returns 81 unique dockets, spread across 36 different federal courts, with filing dates from July 21, 2015 through July 15, 2026 (searched August 11, 2026, CourtListener). A parallel search on "Biz2Credit" returns only 6. Broken down:
62 of the 81 are in bankruptcy courts.
In 36 of those Itria is the first-named party, typically pursuing a claim inside a debtor's bankruptcy case. In 26 the debtor, trustee, or another party has named Itria, which is the posture used for matters such as preference and avoidance actions, lien disputes, and objections to claims.
19 are ordinary district court cases,
and most of those are contract actions with Itria as plaintiff, which is what a funder's collection litigation looks like on a docket.
Filings have not slowed.
28 of the 81, roughly one third, were filed since January 2023.
The composition is the finding here. This is not a docket dominated by borrowers suing over the product. It is dominated by insolvency. The most common way an Itria Ventures matter reaches federal court is that a funded business ends up in bankruptcy and the funder appears there to protect its position. For a business owner currently behind on payments, that is more informative than any review score, because it describes the path a distressed Itria account tends to travel.
Two limitations. This archive covers federal courts only. Merchant cash advance collection actions are overwhelmingly filed in state court, particularly in New York, so the true number of cases involving these entities in any court is far higher than 81. RECAP coverage of federal dockets is also incomplete. Nothing here should be read as a complete litigation history.
What we looked for and did not find
In the interest of not letting omission do the work of implication: we found no Small Business Administration Office of Inspector General report, no state attorney general action, and no Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement matter naming Biz2Credit or Itria Ventures as a respondent. The SBA Office of Inspector General has published critical work on Paycheck Protection Program lender oversight generally, but none that we could locate names these companies. Where a claim could not be sourced to a document today, it is not on this page.
Timeline of the public record
- 2007
Biz2Credit begins operating, by its own account, and says it has since arranged more than $8 billion in small business financing.
- July 21, 2015
Earliest Itria Ventures docket in the CourtListener and RECAP archive, a contract action in the Southern District of New York.
- October 2015
Trade press reports the court's ruling denying dismissal of Kalamata Capital's tortious interference claim against Biz2Credit and Itria.
- 2020 to 2021
Biz2Credit participates in the Paycheck Protection Program. The company says it processed over half a million applications in 2021 and funded more than 170,000 businesses.
- February 8, 2022
InvenTel.tv LLC files a proposed class action against Itria and Biz2Credit in the Southern District of New York alleging usury and misrepresentation.
- March 2, 2022
The plaintiff voluntarily dismisses that case without prejudice.
- March 18, 2024
The FTC files suit against Biz2Credit and Itria Ventures in the Southern District of New York, and Biz2Credit issues a public statement saying it settled with no admission of wrongdoing.
- March 21, 2024
The court enters the stipulated order with a $33,000,000 judgment and a permanent injunction.
- April 19, 2024
Itria Ventures LLC files its first Form ABS-15G with the SEC.
- July 15, 2026
Most recent Itria Ventures docket in the archive as of this review.
What to do if you are struggling with repayment
First, what the record above does not give you.
It does not give you a defense. The FTC judgment concerned Paycheck Protection Program marketing in 2020 and 2021 and was paid to the Commission for redress tied to that conduct. It has nothing to do with a revenue-based financing agreement you signed, and it does not reduce your balance by a dollar. The 2022 class action was voluntarily dismissed with nothing decided. Another party's lawsuit is not your defense, and pointing to a regulator's complaint in a negotiation with a funder will not accomplish anything on its own.
What is genuinely useful:
Find out which entity holds your agreement.
Check the signature page. If it says Itria Ventures LLC, that is who you are dealing with and that is the name to search in your state court records and in UCC filings.
Locate the reconciliation or true-up clause.
Biz2Credit's own legal page says the right exists. Read exactly what your agreement requires you to submit, and by when, to invoke it. A properly documented reconciliation request is a contractual remedy, not a favor, and it is the first thing to look at when revenue has fallen.
Work out your real number.
Not the factor rate. The Amount Sold, minus what you have already delivered, against what your business can actually produce each week. Everything downstream depends on that figure being honest.
Check whether you have stacked.
Multiple concurrent advances change the analysis substantially and often change the order in which problems have to be solved. Our guide to how to settle business debt walks through the sequencing.
Understand the personal guaranty.
A performance guaranty is generally narrower than an unconditional personal guaranty, but its scope depends on its wording. If an owner's personal exposure is on the table, that is a question for an attorney.
Do not stop payments without a plan.
An abrupt halt can trigger default provisions, additional fees, UCC notices to your customers, and litigation. Sequence matters.
If the payments are the problem
If the daily or weekly debits are the thing breaking your business, that is a separate problem from anything in the court record above, and it is the problem we work on. Business Debt Adjusters is an independent business debt consultancy. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized to represent Biz2Credit or Itria Ventures, we are not a law firm, and we do not provide legal advice. What we do is negotiate with funders on behalf of business owners who cannot sustain their current payment structure.
We cannot promise a particular outcome, a specific reduction, or a timeline. Results depend on your agreements, your funder, and your finances. Some funders negotiate readily and some do not. Some situations are better addressed by a lawyer, by a restructuring, or by nothing at all, and we will say so when that is our read.
If you want to understand the landscape before you talk to anyone, start with our overview of MCA debt relief, our breakdown of how to settle business debt, and our comparison of the best MCA settlement companies for 2026, which includes the methodology we used to rank firms including ourselves.
Frequently asked questions
Is Biz2Credit legit?
Biz2Credit, Inc. is a real, operating Delaware corporation headquartered at 1 Penn Plaza in New York, and its funding subsidiary Itria Ventures LLC is a registered SEC filer that has been financing small businesses since at least 2015. It is not a fictitious company. It has also been the subject of a federal enforcement action: in March 2024 the Federal Trade Commission filed suit in the Southern District of New York and the court entered a stipulated order imposing a $33,000,000 monetary judgment against Biz2Credit and Itria Ventures over the marketing of Paycheck Protection Program loan applications. The defendants neither admitted nor denied the allegations. Being legitimate and being the subject of an enforcement action are separate questions, and the public record supports both statements.
What was the Biz2Credit FTC settlement about?
The FTC alleged that Biz2Credit and Itria Ventures advertised that Paycheck Protection Program applications would be processed in an average of 10 to 14 business days when the actual average was roughly double that, that tens of thousands of applicants waited more than two months for a final determination, and that the companies often ignored applicants who asked to withdraw so they could apply elsewhere. The complaint also alleged that roughly 40 percent of applicants had their applications cancelled or rejected. The parties settled without a trial. The court entered a stipulated order on March 21, 2024 with a $33,000,000 judgment and a permanent injunction against misrepresenting application processing times, approval odds, application status, and material facts about a government benefit.
Does Biz2Credit offer merchant cash advances?
Yes, and according to Biz2Credit's own legal page it is the main thing the company does. That page states that Revenue-Based Financing is used by almost all of its customers, that Revenue-Based Financing is also known as Sales-Based Financing or Merchant Cash Advance, and that the contract is called a Receivables Sale Agreement. It also states that a small percentage of customers are eligible for a term loan. If you assumed you were getting a conventional business loan from Biz2Credit, the company's own disclosure says the opposite is far more likely.
Why does my Biz2Credit contract say Itria Ventures?
Itria Ventures LLC is the Biz2Credit entity that actually funds and holds the financing. Biz2Credit's legal page states that Revenue-Based Financing agreements are made at the sole and final discretion of Itria Ventures LLC, and that term loans are made by Itria Ventures LLC or by Cross River Bank. Itria is also the name that appears on court filings, UCC liens, and collection correspondence. If you are searching for your funder's litigation history, searching Biz2Credit alone will miss most of it, because the federal docket record is filed under Itria Ventures.
Has Biz2Credit been sued by borrowers over its merchant cash advance contracts?
One putative class action raised those claims. In February 2022, InvenTel.tv LLC filed a proposed class action in the Southern District of New York alleging that Itria Ventures and Biz2Credit misrepresented loans as receivables purchase agreements and charged criminally usurious rates. The docket lists the nature of suit as racketeering. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on March 2, 2022, and the notice of dismissal gives no reason. There was no ruling on the merits, no class was certified, and nothing in that case was established as fact.
Can a lawsuit against Biz2Credit or Itria reduce what I owe?
Not by itself. A case brought by another business, a regulator, or an investor does not change your contract, your balance, or your obligations. The FTC judgment was paid to the Commission for redress tied to Paycheck Protection Program conduct in 2020 and 2021, not to holders of merchant cash advance agreements. What you owe depends on the agreement you signed, your payment history, and whatever you are able to negotiate. No particular outcome can be promised.
