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.
Microsoft/Activision Blizzard, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission authorized an administrative complaint against the proposed merger between Microsoft Corp. and Activision Blizzard, Inc., a video game developer that creates and publishes games such as Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Diablo, and Overwatch. Microsoft sells the Xbox gaming console and also offers a video game subscription service called Xbox Game Pass, as well as a cloud-based video game streaming service. The agency alleges that the deal would enable Microsoft to suppress competitors to its Xbox gaming consoles and its rapidly growing subscription and cloud-gaming business. The Commission withdrew the matter from adjudication in July 2023, and returned it to adjudication on September 26, 2023. The evidentiary hearing will commence 21 days after the issuance of the district court's decision in FTC v. Microsoft.
Ryan Cohen, US v.
In September 2024, the FTC announced that Ryan Cohen, managing partner of RC Ventures, LLC, and Chairman and CEO of GameStop Corp., will pay a $985,320 civil penalty to settle charges that his acquisition of Wells Fargo & Company shares violated the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act.
Enbridge and Spectra Energy
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.
B4B Corp.
The Federal Trade Commission, jointly with the Department of Justice and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have sued a New York-based marketer of herbal tea, seeking to permanently block deceptive ads that claim its Earth Tea is clinically proven to treat, cure, and prevent COVID-19.
Gravity Defyer, FTC v.
In June 2022, the FTC took action against California-based Gravity Defyer Medical Technology Corporation and its owner Alexander Elnekaveh, filing a complaint in federal district court to permanently stop their allegedly deceptive pain-relief claims for Gravity Defyer footwear. In its complaint the FTC alleged that Elnekaveh violated a 2001 order barring him from such allegedly deceptive advertising by making scientifically unsupported claims and using misleading consumer testimonials to sell Gravity Defyer products. In February 2025, the FTC announced a final order setting the case, in which the defendants were barred from the allegedly deceptive advertising and required to pay a civil penalty of $175,000.
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan In the Matter of Exxon Mobil Corporation
Intellivision, In the Matter of
Announcing settlement with IntelliVision Technologies over allegations that the company made false claims about its AI-powered facial recognition software.
FTC finalized order against IntelliVision Technologies Corp., settling allegations that the company made false, misleading, or unsubstantiated claims that its AI-powered facial recognition software was free of gender or racial bias.
Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon eCommerce)
The Federal Trade Commission, 18 state attorneys general, and Puerto Rico sued Amazon alleging that the online retail and technology company is a monopolist that uses a set of interlocking anticompetitive and unfair strategies to illegally maintain its monopoly power. The FTC and its state partners say Amazon’s actions allow it to stop rivals and sellers from lowering prices, degrade quality for shoppers, overcharge sellers, stifle innovation, and prevent rivals from fairly competing against Amazon.
American Vehicle Protection Corporation
In February 2022, the FTC took action in federal court against a Florida-based group of defendants it alleges called hundreds of thousands of consumers nationwide to pitch them expensive “extended automobile warranties” using deceptive telemarketing tactics. According to the FTC complaint, American Vehicle Protection Corp. and related defendants bilked consumers out of more than $6 million over the last four years. Under the terms of proposed court orders, three companies and their owners that were charged by the FTC with running the operation that scammed consumers out of millions of dollars would be permanently banned from participating in the extended automobile warranty market, as well as from any further involvement in outbound telemarketing. An additional court order announced in July 2023 bans an additional corporate defendant and its owner.
The Federal Trade Commission is sending more than $449,000 in refunds to consumers who were harmed by American Vehicle Protection Corp., which engaged in a telemarketing scam that involved calling hundreds of thousands of consumers nationwide to pitch expensive “extended automobile warranties” using deceptive telemarketing tactics.
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Joined by Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya in the Matter of Chevron Corporation and Hess Corporation
Concurring Statement of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter in the Matter of ExxonMobil Corp
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan in the Matter of Exxon Mobil Corporation
Joint Dissenting Statement of Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew N. Ferguson in the Matter of Exxon Mobil Corporation
Rite Aid Corporation, FTC v.
Rite Aid is prohibited from using facial recognition technology for security or surveillance purposes for five years to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the retailer failed to implement reasonable procedures and prevent harm to consumers in its use of facial recognition technology in hundreds of stores.
The proposed order requires Rite Aid to implement comprehensive safeguards to prevent these types of harm to consumers when deploying automated systems that use biometric information to track them or flag them as security risks. It also requires Rite Aid to discontinue using any such technology if it cannot control potential risks to consumers. To settle charges it violated a 2010 Commission data security order by failing to adequately oversee its service providers, Rite Aid is also required to implement a robust information security program, which must be overseen by the company’s top executives.
Global Tel Link Corporation
The FTC alleged that Global Tel*Link Corp. and two of its subsidiaries failed to secure sensitive data of hundreds of thousands of users stored in a cloud environment and failed to alert all those affected by the incident.