Displaying 1 - 20 of 5408
Michael and Valerie Rando, et al., FTC v.
At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a federal court has temporarily halted a bogus credit repair scheme known as The Credit Game for promoting a series of lies and deceptions. The FTC alleged the scheme’s operators lied to credit reporting agencies regarding information on consumers’ credit reports and pitched consumers a supposed business opportunity that was essentially starting their own bogus credit repair scheme.
In a complaint filed against The Credit Game and its owners, Michael and Valerie Rando, the FTC alleged that the company has illegally charged consumers hundreds and even thousands of dollars for credit repair services of little to no value and told consumers to “invest” their COVID-19 governmental benefits on their unlawful services. In some cases, the company’s “services” included filing false identity theft reports with the FTC and encouraging consumers to take actions that were unlawful. The FTC asked the court to immediately halt the company’s illegal operations, appoint a receiver, and freeze the defendants’ assets. The court issued a temporary restraining order doing so on May 3, 2022.
As a result of a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit, the operators of “The Credit Game,” a credit repair scheme that cost consumers millions of dollars, face a lifetime ban from the credit repair industry in proposed court orders filed today.
Michael and Valerie Rando and their companies, first sued by the FTC in May 2022, would also be required to turn over a wide array of property that would be liquidated and used to provide refunds to consumers harmed by the scam.
The FTC issued more than $3.5 million in refunds to consumers harmed by a credit-repair scheme called ‘The Credit Game.’
FTC Releases Agenda for Workshop on Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices in “Gender-Affirming Care” for Minors
FTC Sends $126 Million in Refunds to Fortnite Players Who Were Charged for Unwanted Items, Reopens Claims Process
Mercury Marketing LLC, FTC v.
The FTC filed a complaint alleging that Mercury Marketing, LLC, and other defendants impersonated substance use disorder treatment clinics in Google search ads to deceptively route consumers trying to call those clinics to defendant clinics.
FTC Sues to Stop Mercury Marketing and Others from Deceptively Advertising Substance Use Disorder Treatment Clinics
FTC Sends More Than $8.1 Million to Consumers Harmed by Care.com’s Deceptive Claims About Earnings, Job Listings, and Cancellation Practices
FTC Case Leads to Order Banning Ascend Ecom and Its Owners from Business Opportunity Marketing
Blackstone Legal
As a result of a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit, a federal court has temporarily halted the operations and frozen the assets of a phantom debt collection scheme and its operators. The scheme has operated under numerous names, including Blackrock Services, Blackstone Legal Group, Capital Legal Services, Quest Legal Group, Viking Legal Services, and others.
According to the FTC’s complaint, the operators of this scheme are Ryan and Mitchell Evans and their affiliated companies. Debt collectors working for the scheme’s operators and their affiliated companies have sent consumers deceptive warning and collection letters or called them directly, claiming that consumers owed a debt of some kind and threatening legal action, wage garnishment, negative impacts to consumers’ credit, and even arrest if they don’t pay. The debts described in these letters and calls never existed, according to the complaint, and the defendants have no basis to make legal threats toward consumers.
In June 2025, the FTC announced a settlement that would ban Blackstone Legal and its owners from all debt collection and require surrender of assets.
Ascend Ecom
The FTC has filed a lawsuit against an online business opportunity scheme that it alleges has falsely claimed its “cutting edge” AI-powered tools would help consumers quickly earn thousands of dollars a month in passive income by opening online storefronts. According to the complaint, the scheme has defrauded consumers of at least $25 million.
According to the FTC’s complaint, the operators of the scheme charge consumers tens of thousands of dollars to start online stores on ecommerce platforms such as Amazon, Walmart, Etsy, and TikTok, while also requiring them to spend tens of thousands more on inventory. Ascend’s advertising content claimed the company was a leader in ecommerce, using proprietary software and artificial intelligence to maximize clients’ business success.
The operators of Ascend Ecom, an online business opportunity that allegedly cost consumers millions of dollars, will be banned from selling business opportunities and required to turn over assets to the Federal Trade Commission under the terms of a proposed court order.
Walmart to Pay $10 Million to Settle FTC Allegations it Allowed Scammers to Obtain Millions from Consumers Using Company’s Wire Transfer Services
Operator of Ganadores Ecommerce and Real Estate Business Opportunity Scam Faces Lifetime Ban as a Result of FTC Action
FTC Sends More than $2 Million to Consumers Harmed by Scammers Pitching Bogus Money-Making and Coaching Programs
Asbury Automotive Group, Inc., et al., In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission is acting against a large automotive dealer group, Asbury Automotive, for systematically charging consumers for costly add-on items they did not agree to or were falsely told were required as part of their purchase. The FTC also alleges that Asbury discriminates against Black and Latino consumers, targeting them with unwanted and higher-priced add-ons.
In an administrative complaint, the FTC alleges that three Texas dealerships owned by Asbury that operate as David McDavid Ford Ft. Worth, David McDavid Honda Frisco, and David McDavid Honda Irving, along with Ali Benli, who acted as general manager of those dealerships, engaged in a variety of practices to sneak hidden fees for unwanted add-ons past consumers. These tactics included a practice called “payment packing,” where the dealerships convinced consumers to agree to monthly payments that were larger than needed to pay for the agreed-upon price of the car, and then “packed” add-on items to the sales contract to make up that difference.