Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

The Federal Trade Commission sued F & G International Group Holdings, LLC, FG International, LLC, and their principal J. Glenn Davis, alleging they make false or unsubstantiated R-value claims about their architectural coatings products. In July 2020, the FTC sued four companies that sell paint products used to coat buildings and homes, alleging that they deceived consumers about their products’ insulation and energy-savings capabilities. In complaints filed in federal court, the FTC charged that the companies falsely overstated the R-value ratings of the coatings, making deceptive statements about heat flow and insulating power.

The FTC entered into a settlement with the operators of LendEDU.com to resolve allegations that LendEDU falsely claimed that the website provided “objective,” “accurate,” and “unbiased” information about consumer financial products, such as student loans, personal loans, and credit cards, when in fact they offered higher rankings and ratings to companies that paid for placement.

The Federal Trade Commission is sending refunds to individuals who lost money to a company called I Works, which operated deceptive "trial" memberships and bogus government-grant and money-making schemes in 2010. 

The Federal Trade Commission is mailing checks totaling more than $1 million to individuals targeted by a business opportunity scheme that promised consumers big profits from selling on Amazon.

Unrollme Inc. reached a settlement with the FTC over allegations that the company deceived some consumers about how it accesses and uses their personal emails.

According to the agency’s April 2019 complaint, UrthBox violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting that positive consumer reviews on the BBB’s and other websites reflected the independent experiences or opinions of impartial consumers, while the reviewers actually had a material connection to the company. The FTC alleged that UrthBox did not adequately disclose that some consumers received compensation, including free snack boxes, to post those positive reviews. The final order settling the FTC’s charges bars the respondents from engaging in similar conduct and requires them to pay $100,000 to the FTC. In December 2019, the FTC returned more than $84,000 to compensate consumers charged after signing up for the trial offer.

In June 2018, the final two defendants among a group of California-based marketers were permanently barred from the deceptive marketing and billing tactics used in connection with selling skincare products offered to consumers with supposedly “risk-free” trials. The court order settled the charges against them, which the FTC announced in mid-2015. In all, 32 defendants who sold AuraVie, Dellure, LéOR Skincare, and Miracle Face Kit branded skincare products agreed to court orders with the FTC or had default orders entered against them. In November 2019, the FTC announced it was returning over $1.8 million to consumers who bought the deceptively marketed products.

The Federal Trade Commission has sued online dating service Match Group, Inc. (Match), the owner of Match.com, Tinder, OKCupid, PlentyOfFish, and other dating sites, alleging that the company used fake love interest advertisements to trick hundreds of thousands of consumers into purchasing paid subscriptions on Match.com. The agency also alleges that Match has unfairly exposed consumers to the risk of fraud and engaged in other allegedly deceptive and unfair practices. For instance, the FTC alleges Match offered false promises of “guarantees,” failed to provide services to consumers who unsuccessfully disputed charges, and made it difficult for users to cancel their subscriptions.

The Federal Trade Commission finalized five separate proposed administrative complaints and orders enforcing the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), which prohibits businesses from using form contract provisions that bar consumers from writing or posting negative reviews online, or threatening them with legal action if they do. These are the first five Commission actions exclusively focused on enforcing the CRFA, with the complaints filed against: 1) A Waldron HVAC, LLC and its owner, Thomas J. Waldron; 2) National Floors Direct, Inc. (NFD); 3) LVTR LLC (LTVR) and its owner, Tomi A. Truax; 4) Shore to Please Vacations LLC; and 5) Staffordshire Property Management, LLC. Each respondent agreed to separate final Commission orders barring them from using such non-disparagement clauses in form contracts for goods and services, and requiring them to notify consumers who signed such contracts that the prohibited text is not enforceable. The FTC sent two letters in response to public comments in the Staffordshire matter.

The Federal Trade Commission finalized five separate proposed administrative complaints and orders enforcing the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), which prohibits businesses from using form contract provisions that bar consumers from writing or posting negative reviews online, or threatening them with legal action if they do. These are the first five Commission actions exclusively focused on enforcing the CRFA, with the complaints filed against: 1) A Waldron HVAC, LLC and its owner, Thomas J. Waldron; 2) National Floors Direct, Inc. (NFD); 3) LVTR LLC (LTVR) and its owner, Tomi A. Truax; 4) Shore to Please Vacations LLC; and 5) Staffordshire Property Management, LLC. Each respondent agreed to separate final Commission orders barring them from using such non-disparagement clauses in form contracts for goods and services, and requiring them to notify consumers who signed such contracts that the prohibited text is not enforceable. The FTC sent two letters in response to public comments in the Staffordshire matter.

The Federal Trade Commission finalized five separate proposed administrative complaints and orders enforcing the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), which prohibits businesses from using form contract provisions that bar consumers from writing or posting negative reviews online, or threatening them with legal action if they do. These are the first five Commission actions exclusively focused on enforcing the CRFA, with the complaints filed against: 1) A Waldron HVAC, LLC and its owner, Thomas J. Waldron; 2) National Floors Direct, Inc. (NFD); 3) LVTR LLC (LTVR) and its owner, Tomi A. Truax; 4) Shore to Please Vacations LLC; and 5) Staffordshire Property Management, LLC. Each respondent agreed to separate final Commission orders barring them from using such non-disparagement clauses in form contracts for goods and services, and requiring them to notify consumers who signed such contracts that the prohibited text is not enforceable. The FTC sent two letters in response to public comments in the Staffordshire matter.

The Federal Trade Commission reached settlements with a group of St. Louis-based defendants who used deceptive Internet pop-up ads to trick consumers into buying unnecessary technical support services.

The FTC is mailing 53,595 refund checks totaling $748,070 to consumers nationwide who signed up for an online auction kit that was supposed to be free, but wasn’t. The kit actually cost consumers up to $59.95 per month if they failed to cancel a trial membership in a business opportunity program called Online Supplier.