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.
CarShield
In July 2024, NRRM, LLC, which does business as CarShield, along with American Auto Shield, LLC, the administrator of its vehicle service contracts, agreed to pay $10 million to settle FTC charges that its advertisements and telemarketing for VSC are deceptive and misleading, and that many purchasers found that many repairs were not “covered,” despite making payments of up to $120 per month. The FTC also alleges CarShield’s celebrity and consumer endorsers made false statements in its ads.
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Regarding the Social Media and Video Streaming Service Providers Privacy Report
Natalia Lynch, In the Matter of
Chris Allen Hartman, In the Matter of
W. Bret Calhoun, In the Matter of
Weblio
At the FTC’s request, a federal court has temporarily halted the operation of a sprawling business opportunity scheme that has taken in millions of dollars from consumers with bogus promises of huge returns. The scheme has operated since at least 2018 under a number of names, including “Blueprint to Wealth,” according to the FTC’s complaint. Three individuals -- Samuel James Smith, Robert William Shafer and Charles Joseph Garis, Jr. -- and a company owned by one of them -- Business Revolution Group -- are charged in the complaint with operating the scheme.
The defendants in the case agreed to settlements with the FTC that include monetary judgements, industry bans, and prohibitions on certain conduct.
1Health.io/Vitagene, In the Matter of
The FTC reached a settlement with 1Health.io over allegations that it left sensitive genetic and health data unsecured, deceived consumers about their ability to get their data deleted and changed its privacy policy retroactively without adequately notifying and obtaining consent from consumers whose data the company had already collected.