Skip to main content

Displaying 1 - 20 of 6054

FTC Withdraws Obsolete Policy Statement

Date
The Federal Trade Commission rescinded the 2021 Policy Statement on Breaches by Health Apps and Other Connected Devices. This controversial policy statement purported to apply the FTC’s Health Breach...

Humboldt Merchant Services

Payment processing company Humboldt Merchant Services will pay $12 million and be permanently banned from processing payments for merchants with a heightened risk of potential fraud to settle allegations that Humboldt processed payments for merchants that defrauded consumers.

According to the FTC’s complaintHumboldt processed payments for more than 1,000 merchants that were shell entities that served as fronts or pass-throughs for fraudulent companies engaged in unauthorized billing scams, including Legion Media, which the FTC shut down in 2024.

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
Case Status
Pending

Nuvei

Nuvei will pay $4.85 million to settle FTC charges that the firm opened and maintained payment processing accounts for merchants that it knew or should have known were engaged in deception, including tech support scams that took millions of dollars from consumers. 

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
Case Status
Pending

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.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
222 3135
Docket Number
9436
Case Status
Pending

1010 Digital Works LLC, In the Matter of

The FTC will require Cox Media Group, MindSift, and 1010 Digital Works to pay a total of $930,000 to settle allegations they deceived customers by falsely claiming to offer an AI-powered service that could target localized ads based on conversations captured from consumers’ smart devices and that consumers had opted into such targeting.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
242 3033
Docket Number
C-4840
Case Status
Pending

MindSift LLC, In the Matter of

The FTC will require Cox Media Group, MindSift, and 1010 Digital Works to pay a total of $930,000 to settle allegations they deceived customers by falsely claiming to offer an AI-powered service that could target localized ads based on conversations captured from consumers’ smart devices and that consumers had opted into such targeting.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
242 3030
Docket Number
C-4839
Case Status
Pending

CMG Media Corporation, In the Matter of

The FTC will require Cox Media Group, MindSift, and 1010 Digital Works to pay a total of $930,000 to settle allegations they deceived customers by falsely claiming to offer an AI-powered service that could target localized ads based on conversations captured from consumers’ smart devices and that consumers had opted into such targeting

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
242 3029
Docket Number
C-4838
Case Status
Pending

FTC v. Hopper (USA), Inc.

The companies that operate the Hopper travel apps have agreed to pay $35 million and will be prohibited from deceiving consumers about fees to settle the Federal Trade Commission’s allegations that they unfairly charged consumers hidden fees and misrepresented the total prices consumers would pay and the benefits of the companies’ VIP Support and Price Freeze services.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that despite its “no hidden fees” promises, Canadian company Hopper Inc. and its Massachusetts-based subsidiary Hopper (USA) Inc., unfairly charged users without their consent for “Tip” and VIP Support fees that the company claimed were optional yet were hidden and pre-selected for consumers.

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
232 3086
Case Status
Pending