Displaying 21 - 40 of 9557
FTC Chairman Testifies Before House Appropriations Committee on Agency’s Budget
Panda Benefit Services, LLC., FTC v.
In June 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it took action to stop Prosperity Benefit Services, a student loan debt relief scheme that the agency says bilked more than $20.3 million from consumers seeking debt relief by pretending to be affiliated with the Department of Education. The FTC also charged that the company and its operators falsely claimed that they would take over consumers’ student loans to get them loan forgiveness that did not exist. In May 2025, the FTC announced that the operation and its owners are permanently banned from the debt relief industry and required to turn over all assets to resolve allegations that they misled consumers.
With NFL’s 2025 Schedule Set to be Announced, FTC Warns Ticket Reseller StubHub it Must Comply with Agency’s New Rule on Unfair and Deceptive Fees
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.
FTC Votes on Negative Option Rule Deadline
FTC Files Amicus Brief on DOJ’s Proposed Final Judgment Against Google for Antitrust Violations
FTC Action Ends Ecommerce Empire Builders Online Business Opportunity Scam
Empire Holdings Group LLC, et al. FTC v.
The FTC has charged a business opportunity scheme with falsely claiming to help consumers build an “AI-powered Ecommerce Empire” by participating in its training programs that can cost almost $2,000 or by buying a “done for you” online storefront for tens of thousands of dollars. The scheme, known as Ecommerce Empire Builders (EEB), claims consumers can potentially make millions of dollars, but the FTC’s complaint alleges that those profits fail to materialize.
As a result of the FTC’s complaint, a federal court issued an order temporarily halting the scheme and putting it under the control of a receiver. The FTC’s case against the scheme is ongoing and will be decided by a federal court.
In May 2025, EEB and its owner, Peter Prusinowski (also known as Peter Pru), agreed to a court order that bans them from selling business opportunities and require them to turn over assets to the FTC to be used for refunds to consumers.
More than $5 Million in Refunds Sent to Consumers as a Result of the FTC’s Action Against Cerebral over Deceptive Cancellation Practices
FTC Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees to Take Effect on May 12, 2025
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.
Facebook, Inc., In the Matter of
The FTC alleged that Facebook violated its privacy promises to consumers and subsequently violated a 2012 Commission order.
FTC to Ban Debt Collector Who Allegedly Coerced Consumers into Paying Debt They Didn’t Owe
FTC, State of Nevada Take Action Against IM Mastery Academy for Deceiving Consumers
FTC Sends More Than $18 Million to Consumers Harmed by Publishers Clearing House
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).
Displaying 21 - 40 of 9557