The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
SL Finance
The Federal Trade Commission has stopped a pair of student loan debt relief schemes that it says bilked students out of approximately $12 million by using deceptive claims about repayment programs and loan forgiveness that did not exist. The agency also says the companies falsely claimed to be or be affiliated with the Department of Education and told students that the illegal payments the companies collected would count towards their loans.
After the FTC filed complaints seeking to end the deceptive practices, a federal court temporarily halted the two schemes and froze their assets.
In early October 2023, SL finance and BCO Consulting were permanently banned from the debt relief industry and ordered to turn over their assets as part of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.
In July 2025, the FTC issued more than $356,900 in payments to consumers harmed by SL Finance.
20251394: Pearson plc; Gauge Capital Parallel II Preferred SPV LP
20251408: Eli Lilly and Company; Verve Therapeutics, Inc.
20251442: Novant Health, Inc.; TPG Growth V DE AIV II, L.P.
20251444: EPFS Acquisition Holdings, LP; Frazier Healthcare Growth Buyout Fund IX, L.P.
20251466: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Triton Fund IV L.P.
20251468: RCP Artemis Co-Invest, L.P.; AG Congress Holdings, LP
20251471: EQT Infrastructure VI (No.1) EUR SCSp; North Haven Infrastructure Partners III SCSp
20251472: EQT Infrastructure VI (No.1) EUR SCSp; North Haven Infrastructure Partners III (AIV-B) SCSp
PepsiCo Inc., FTC v.
Petition of Respondents Quantum Energy Partners VI, LP, Q-TH Appalachia (VI) Investments Partners, LLC, and QEP Partners, LP To Reopen and Set Aside Order
Accelerated Debt Settlement
In July 2025, at the Federal Trade Commission’s request, a federal court temporarily halted an alleged debt relief services scheme that targeted seniors, including veterans, using a wide range of deceptive conduct, including falsely impersonating consumers’ banks and credit card companies as well as government agencies.
Support King, LLC (SpyFone.com), In the Matter of
The FTC approved a proposed order banning SpyFone and its CEO Scott Zuckerman from the surveillance business over allegations that the stalkerware app company secretly harvested and shared data on people’s physical movements, phone use, and online activities through a hidden device hack.
Exxon Mobil Corporation, In the Matter of
On July 17, 2025, the FTC reopened and set aside the final consent order involving Exxon Mobil Corporation’s proposed acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources Company.
Chevron/Hess, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission took action to resolve antitrust concerns related to Chevron Corporation’s acquisition of rival oil producer Hess Corporation by approving a proposed consent order that would prohibit Chevron from appointing Hess CEO John B. Hess to its Board of Directors.
The FTC’s complaint alleges that Mr. Hess communicated publicly and privately with the past and current Secretaries General of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and an official from Saudi Arabia. In these communications, Mr. Hess stressed the importance of oil market stability and inventory management and encouraged these officials to take actions on these issues and speak about them at different events, the complaint alleges.
On July 17, 2025, the FTC reopened and set aside the final consent order involving Chevron Corporation’s proposed acquisition of Hess Corporation.
Southern Health Solutions, Inc., et al.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment
Evoke Wellness, LLC., FTC v.
In January 2025, the FTC sued Florida-based Evoke Wellness, LLC and Evoke Health Care Management and their officers Jonathan Mosley and James Hull for using a combination of deceptive Google search ads and telemarketing to masquerade as other substance use disorder treatment providers. The FTC announced the settlement of the case in June 2025, with the defendants being barred from the deceptive conduct and agreeing to pay a $1.9 million civil penalty.