Skip to main content

Displaying 161 - 180 of 8106

Vision Path, Inc., d/b/a Hubble Contacts, U.S. v.

In January 2022, New York City-based Vision Path, Inc., the online seller of direct-to-consumer Hubble lenses, agreed pay penalties and redress totaling $3.5 million to settle FTC charges that it violated the Contact Lens Rule in several ways, including by failing to obtain prescriptions and to properly verify prescription information, and by substituting Hubble lenses for those actually prescribed to consumers. The FTC also alleged the company violated the FTC Act when it failed to disclose that many reviews of Hubble lenses were not by unbiased consumers but were written by reviewers who were compensated for their reviews, and, in at least one instance, by one of its own executives.

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
182 3028
Case Status
Pending

Arete Financial Group

In November 2019, the Federal Trade Commission obtained a temporary restraining order halting an operation that bilked consumers out of millions of dollars by pretending to be affiliated with the U.S. Department of Education and falsely promising student loan debt relief. In September 2020, the FTC announced several of the operators settled FTC charges and agreed to pay at least $835,000. In January 2022, the FTC announced that the remaining defendants in the case are banned from providing student loan debt relief services in settlements with the FTC. The defendants are required to forfeit all of their frozen funds held by the receiver. The Commission plans to use the money recovered in this case for consumer refunds.

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
192 3040
Case Status
Pending

Avant, LLC

The Federal Trade Commission is returning more than $3.7 million to consumers who lost money because of unfair and deceptive loan servicing practices by online lender Avant, LLC.

The FTC sued Avant in April 2019, alleging that the company falsely advertised that it would accept payments by credit or debit cards, when in fact it did not. This often resulted in customers being charged additional interest on their loans as they tried to arrange a different form of payment. The FTC also alleged that the company withdrew money from customers’ bank accounts or charged their credit cards without authorization, failed to properly and timely credit payments made by check, provided deceptive payoff quotes to customers, and tried to collect more money than the quoted payoff amount.

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
162 3090