Publishers Business Services, Inc., along with other defendants previously settled FTC allegations that the defendants deceptively telemarketed magazine subscriptions. The defendants also allegedly harassed consumers at work and at home, in an attempt to get them to pay for the subscriptions, and engaged in other threatening conduct over the phone. In May 2022, the Commission announced a settlement of the monetary component of the order.
Every year the FTC brings hundreds of cases against individuals and companies for violating consumer protection and competition laws that the agency enforces. These cases can involve fraud, scams, identity theft, false advertising, privacy violations, anti-competitive behavior and more. The Legal Library has detailed information about cases we have brought in federal court or through our internal administrative process, called an adjudicative proceeding.
Concurring Statement of Commissioner Christine S. Wilson and Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips in the Matter of Twitter, Inc.
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Joined by Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter in the Matter of Twitter, Inc.
In May 2022, the FTC took action against R360 LLC and its owner, Steven Doumar, for deceiving people seeking help for addiction about the evaluation and selection criteria for the treatment centers in their network. The case is the FTC’s first under the Opioid Addiction Recovery Fraud Prevention Act of 2018. The agency secured a $3.8 million civil penalty judgment against the defendants and an order prohibiting them from continuing to make the same kinds of misrepresentations.
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Regarding Solicitation for Public Comments on the Infant Formula Shortage
Statement of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter Regarding the Policy Statement on Education Technology and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act
Statement of Commissioner Alvaro Martin Bedoya Regarding the Policy Statement on Education Technology and COPPA
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Regarding Policy Statement on Education Technology and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
Written Submission on the Public Interest of Chair Lina M. Khan and Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter in the Matter of Certain UMTS and LTE Cellular Communication Modules
The Federal Trade Commission required Medtronic, Inc. to divest a key subsidiary of Intersect ENT, Inc. as a condition of acquiring Intersect. Under the FTC consent decree, Instersect’s Fiagon subsidiary, which makes ear, nose, and throat navigation systems and balloon sinus dilation products, will be sold to Hemostasis, LLC. According to the complaint, without this divestiture, the acquisition would pose a threat to future competition in the United States for both ENT navigation systems and balloon sinus dilation products.
At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a federal court has temporarily halted a bogus credit repair scheme known as The Credit Game for promoting a series of lies and deceptions. The FTC alleged the scheme’s operators lied to credit reporting agencies regarding information on consumers’ credit reports and pitched consumers a supposed business opportunity that was essentially starting their own bogus credit repair scheme.
In a complaint filed against The Credit Game and its owners, Michael and Valerie Rando, the FTC alleged that the company has illegally charged consumers hundreds and even thousands of dollars for credit repair services of little to no value and told consumers to “invest” their COVID-19 governmental benefits on their unlawful services. In some cases, the company’s “services” included filing false identity theft reports with the FTC and encouraging consumers to take actions that were unlawful. The FTC asked the court to immediately halt the company’s illegal operations, appoint a receiver, and freeze the defendants’ assets. The court issued a temporary restraining order doing so on May 3, 2022.
The FTC along with law enforcement agencies from six states, sued Frontier Communications alleging that the company did not provide many consumers with Internet service at the speeds it promised them, and charged many of them for more expensive and higher-speed service than Frontier actually provided.