Skip to main content

Displaying 1 - 20 of 9402

Cleo AI, Inc., FTC v.

Online cash advance company Cleo AI has agreed to pay $17 million to settle the Federal Trade Commission’s allegations that the company deceived consumers about how much money they could get and how fast that money could be available. The complaint, filed in federal district court along with the proposed settlement order, also alleges that Cleo made it difficult for consumers to cancel Cleo’s subscription service.

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
Case Status
Pending

IM Mastery

The Federal Trade Commission and the State of Nevada are taking action to stop a wide-ranging investment training and business venture scam that has bilked consumers out of more than $1.2 billion. According to the complaint filed by the FTC and the Nevada Attorney General, the scam currently operates as IYOVIA and has also used the brand names IM Mastery Academy, iMarketsLive, and IM Academy (collectively, “IML”).

The complaint alleges the company and its operators use false or baseless earning claims to entice consumers to purchase training on financial topics. They have used similar claims to persuade consumers to buy into IML’s multi-level-marketing business venture, which involves marketing IML’s training services to others. It also alleges that that IML deliberately focused on marketing to young people, including through posts to college social media pages.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
Case Status
Pending

Publishers Clearing House, LLC (PCH), FTC v.

As a result of a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit, Publishers Clearing House (PCH) has agreed to a proposed court order will require it to pay $18.5 million to consumers who spent money and wasted their time, and make substantial changes to how it conducts business online.

In a complaint against PCH, the FTC charges that the company uses “dark patterns” to mislead consumers about how to enter the company’s well-known sweepstakes drawings and made them believe that a purchase is necessary to win or would increase their chances of winning, and that their sweepstakes entries are incomplete even when they are not. The FTC also charges that the company has added surprise shipping and handling fees to the costs of products, misrepresented that ordering is “risk free,” used deceptive emails as part of its marketing campaign, and misrepresented its policies on selling users’ personal data to third parties prior to January 2019. Many consumers affected by these practices are older and lower-income.

In April 2025, the FTC sent more than $18 million in refunds to consumers harmed by misleading claims made by Publishers Clearing House (PCH).

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
182 3145
Case Status
Closed

Content at Scale AI

In April 2025, the FTC issued a proposed order requiring Workado, LLC to stop advertising the accuracy of its artificial intelligence (AI) detection products unless it maintains competent and reliable evidence showing those products are as accurate as claimed. The settlement will be subject to public comment before becoming final.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
2323092
Case Status
Pending

GoDaddy Inc., et al., In the Matter of

Case settles charges that GoDaddy misled customers about the extent of its data security protections and failed to secure its website hosting services against attacks that could harm its customers and visitors to the customers’ websites. 

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
2023133
Case Status
Pending

accessiBe Inc.

In January 2025, the FTC announced a complaint and proposed order require software provider accessiBe to pay $1 million to settle allegations that it misrepresented the ability of its AI-powered web accessibility tool to make any website compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) for people with disabilities. The Commission approved the order as final in April 2025.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
2223156
Case Status
Pending

Uber, FTC v.

The Federal Trade Commission sued Uber Technologies, Inc. and Uber USA LLC (collectively, “Uber”) for alleged violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence
Act (“ROSCA”). Among other things, the complaint alleges that Uber charges consumers for its subscription service, Uber One, through a negative option feature but has failed to provide a simple mechanism to stop recurring charges. The complaint also alleges Uber has charged consumers without their consent in violation of the FTC Act and ROSCA. Further, the complaint alleges Uber falsely claims that consumers can cancel Uber One at “any time” with no additional fees.
 

The FTC filed a lawsuit today against Uber, alleging the rideshare and delivery company charged consumers for its Uber One subscription service without their consent, failed to deliver promised savings, and made it difficult for users to cancel the service despite its “cancel anytime” promises.

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
2423092
Docket Number
3:25-cv-03477
Case Status
Pending