Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

The FTC alleged that Facebook violated its privacy promises to consumers and subsequently violated a 2012 Commission order.

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.

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.

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).

The Federal Trade Commission issued an administrative complaint to challenge GTCR BC Holdings, LLC’s acquisition of Surmodics, Inc., alleging that the deal, which seeks to combine the two largest manufacturers of critical medical device coatings, is anticompetitive. The FTC charges that private equity firm GTCR’s proposed acquisition of Surmodics would create a combined company controlling more than 50% of the market for outsourced hydrophilic coatings. These coatings are often used by medical device manufacturers and are applied to lifesaving medical devices such as catheters and guidewires.

The Federal Trade Commission filed an amended complaint adding the states of Illinois and Minnesota as co-plaintiffs in the Commission’s lawsuit challenging GTCR BC Holdings, LLC’s (GTCR) acquisition of Surmodics, Inc. (Surmodics). The amended complaint also adds GTCR, LLC as an additional defendant in the case. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

The Federal Trade Commission has sued Facebook, alleging that the company is illegally maintaining its personal social networking monopoly through a years-long course of anticompetitive conduct. The complaint alleges that Facebook has engaged in a systematic strategy—including its 2012 acquisition of up-and-coming rival Instagram, its 2014 acquisition of the mobile messaging app WhatsApp, and the imposition of anticompetitive conditions on software developers—to eliminate threats to its monopoly. The Commission vote to authorize staff to file for a permanent injunction and other equitable relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was 3-2. Commissioners Noah Joshua Phillips and Christine S. Wilson voted no.

To view the FTC v. Meta trial exhibits, click here. Please note there is a two-business day delay in uploading exhibits. 

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.

The Federal Trade Commission moved to block Tempur Sealy International, Inc.’s (Tempur Sealy) proposed $4 billion acquisition of Mattress Firm Group Inc. (Mattress Firm).

The Commission issued an administrative complaint and authorized a lawsuit in federal court to block the acquisition, alleging that Tempur Sealy—the world’s largest mattress supplier and manufacturer—will have the ability and incentive to suppress competition and raise prices for mattresses for millions of consumers once it acquires Mattress Firm.

Enbridge Inc. and Spectra Energy Corp agreed to settle FTC charges that their proposed merger likely would harm competition in the market for pipeline transportation of natural gas in three production areas off the coast of Louisiana. According to the FTC’s complaint, the merger likely would reduce natural gas pipeline competition in three offshore natural gas producing areas in the Gulf of Mexico—Green Canyon, Walker Ridge and Keathley Canyon—leading to higher prices for natural gas pipeline transportation from those areas. In portions of the affected areas, the FTC alleged, the merging parties’ pipelines are the two pipelines located closest to certain wells and, as a result, are likely the lowest cost pipeline transportation options for those wells. According to the FTC, the merger would give Canada-based Enbridge an ownership interest in both pipelines, which will give it access to competitively sensitive information of the Discovery Pipeline, as well as significant voting rights over the Discovery Pipeline. Access to its competitor’s competitively sensitive information and significant voting rights would provide Enbridge with the incentive and opportunity to unilaterally increase pipeline transportation costs for natural gas producers located in the affected areas. The exchange of information also may increase the likelihood of tacit or explicit anticompetitive coordination between the Walker Ridge Pipeline and the Discovery Pipeline. Under the settlement with the FTC, the companies have agreed to conditions that will preserve competition in those areas.The consent agreement requires Enbridge to establish firewalls to limit its access to non-public information about the Discovery Pipeline. Board members of the Spectra-affiliated companies that hold a 40 percent share in the Discovery Pipeline must recuse themselves from any vote involving the pipeline, with two limited exceptions. Also under the order, Enbridge must notify the Commission before acquiring an ownership interest in any natural gas pipeline operating in the Green Canyon, Walker Ridge and Keathley Canyon areas, or increasing the 40 percent ownership interest of Spectra affiliate DCP Midstream Partners, LP in the Discovery Pipeline.

In April 2025, the FTC approved a petition by Enbridge Inc. to reopen and set aside the Commission’s 2017 final consent order related to Enbridge’s merger with Spectra Energy Corp.

The FTC filed a lawsuit against the three largest prescription drug benefit managers (PBMs)—Caremark Rx, Express Scripts (ESI), and OptumRx—and their affiliated group purchasing organizations (GPOs) for engaging in anticompetitive and unfair rebating practices that have artificially inflated the list price of insulin drugs.

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.