Skip to main content
Last Updated
Case Status
Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. OTA Franchise Corporation, a Nevada Corporation; Newport Exchange Holdings, Inc., a California corporation; NEH Services, Inc., a California corporation; Eyal Shachar, also known as Eyal Shahar, individually and as an officer of OTA Franchise Corporation and Newport Exchange Holdings, Inc.; Samuel R. Seiden, individually and as an officer of OTA Franchise Corporation, and Darren Kimoto, individually and as an officer of OTA Franchise Corporation, Defendants.
FTC Matter/File Number
182 3175
Civil Action Number
Federal Court
Central District of California

Case Summary

Online Trading Academy is required to offer debt forgiveness to thousands of consumers who purchased its “training programs,” while the company’s founder and other individuals will together pay between $5 and $9.1 million and turn over assets under the terms of a settlement with the FTC.

The FTC brought a lawsuit alleging that OTA, led by Eyal Shachar, had deceived consumers for years with claims that purchasers of OTA’s investment training were likely to generate significant income. OTA claimed that anyone could learn to use its strategy, and filled its sales pitch with testimonials and hypothetical trades showing significant profits. In August 2021, the Commission announced it is returning more than $5.4 million to defrauded consumers.

Case Timeline