Every year the FTC brings hundreds of cases against individuals and companies for violating consumer protection and competition laws that the agency enforces. These cases can involve fraud, scams, identity theft, false advertising, privacy violations, anti-competitive behavior and more. The Legal Library has detailed information about cases we have brought in federal court or through our internal administrative process, called an adjudicative proceeding.
Napleton Auto
The Federal Trade Commission and the State of Illinois are taking action against Napleton, a large, multistate auto dealer group based in Illinois, for sneaking illegal junk fees for unwanted “add-ons” onto customers’ bills and for discriminating against Black consumers by charging them more for financing. Napleton will pay $10 million to settle the lawsuit brought by the FTC and the State of Illinois, a record-setting monetary judgment for an FTC auto lending case. The Federal Trade Commission is sending payments totaling more than $9.8 million to consumers who were harmed by Illinois-based Napleton Automotive Group’s junk fees and discriminatory practices.
Human Resource Development Services, Inc. d/b/a Saint James School of Medicine, FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission has taken action against a for-profit medical school in the Caribbean and its Illinois-based operators, alleging they deceptively marketed the school’s medical license exam test pass rate and residency matches to lure prospective students. The school and its operators are also charged with violating the Holder Rule, which preserves rights for injured consumers, and the Credit Practices Rule, which protects consumers in credit contracts. The $1.2 million judgment against Saint James School of Medicine and its operators will go toward refunds and debt cancellation for students harmed by the deceptive marketing.
Electrowarmth Products, LLC
The Federal Trade Commission sued Electrowarmth Products, LLC and its owner, Daniel W. Grindle, alleging that they falsely claimed the heated fabric mattress pads they sell for truck bunks were made in the USA. The FTC charged Grindle and Electrowarmth with violating the Textile Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. According to the complaint, Grindle and Electrowarmth violated these acts by labeling and advertising the origin of the textiles used in their products as the United States, when these textile fiber products were wholly imported from China. The proposed order prohibits Grindle and Electrowarmth from making any country-of-origin claim about a product or service unless the claim is not misleading and they have a reasonable basis that substantiates their claim. It also requires Grindle and Electrowarmth to make certain disclosures about the country of origin of any product subject to the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and to provide compliance reports. The FTC announced approval of the final order in October 2022.
Ygrene Energy Fund Inc., FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission and State of California are taking action against home improvement financing provider Ygrene Energy Fund Inc. for deceiving consumers about the potential financial impact of its financing, and for unfairly recording liens on consumers’ homes without their consent. The FTC and California allege that Ygrene and its contractors falsely told consumers that the financing wouldn’t interfere with the sale or refinancing of their homes, in many instances relying on high-pressure sales tactics or outright forgery to sign consumers up.
A proposed court order would require Ygrene to stop its deceptive practices and meaningfully oversee the contractors who have served as its salesforce. As part of the settlement, Ygrene will be required to dedicate $3 million to provide relief to certain consumers whose homes are subject to the company’s liens.
Weber-Stephen Products, LLC
The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against grill maker Weber-Stephen Products, LLC, for illegally restricting customers’ right to repair their purchased products.The FTC’s complaint charges that Weber’s warranty included terms that conveyed that the warranty is void if customers use or install third-party parts on their grill products. Weber is being ordered to fix its warranty by removing illegal terms and recognizing the right to repair and come clean with customers about their ability to use third-party parts.
Westinghouse Outdoor Power Equipment (MWE Investments, LLC)
The FTC sued Harley-Davidson and Westinghouse outdoor generator maker MWE Investments, LLC for illegally restricting customers’ right to repair their purchased products. The complaints charge that the companies’ warranties included terms that conveyed the warranty is void if customers use independent dealers for parts or repairs. The FTC ordered the companies to fix warranties by removing illegal terms and recognizing the right to repair.
Harley-Davidson Motor Company
The FTC sued Harley-Davidson and Westinghouse outdoor generator maker MWE Investments, LLC for illegally restricting customers’ right to repair their purchased products. The complaints charge that the companies’ warranties included terms that conveyed the warranty is void if customers use independent dealers for parts or repairs. The FTC ordered the companies to fix warranties by removing illegal terms and recognizing the right to repair.
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Joined by Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya In the Matter of Drizly
Concurring and Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Christine S. Wilson in the Matter of Drizly, LLC
Opendoor Labs, Inc.
Opendoor Labs Inc. promised to revolutionize home selling by offering to buy consumers homes for market value while reducing transaction costs. It promised to provide speed and certainty to home sellers while saving them thousands compared to selling on the market or selling traditionally, as the company describes such sales. Although Opendoor generally delivered on its promises to provide a faster and more certain transaction, it did not save consumers money. In fact, consumers who sold to Opendoor typically lost thousands compared to what they would have made on the market. Contrary to the company's marketing, it made submarket offers and had associated costs higher than in traditional sales. The company's marketing and the opacity of the transaction, however, left consumers unaware that they had lost money. The Commission approved a final order in this matter in October 2022. In April 2024, the FTC announced it was sending nearly $62 million in refunds to sellers deceived by advertising and marketing claims made by online real estate business.