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.
Arise Virtual Solutions, Inc., FTC v.
The FTC is taking action against Arise Virtual Solutions for misleading consumers about the money they could make on Arise’s platform and marketing its business opportunity without complying with the FTC’s Business Opportunity Rule.
In August 2025, the FTC sent more than $6.7 million to consumers impacted by the gig work company’s deceptive earnings claims.
Grand Canyon University/Grand Canyon Education
The FTC alleges that Grand Canyon Education (GCE), Inc., Grand Canyon University (GCU) and Brian Mueller—the CEO of GCE and president of GCU—deceived prospective doctoral students about the cost and course requirements of its doctoral programs and about being a nonprofit, while also engaging in deceptive and abusive telemarketing practices. The FTC announced on August 15, 2025 it had voted to dismiss the case.
Assurance IQ, LLC
In August 2025, the FTC announce Assurance IQ, LLC and MediaAlpha, Inc. will pay a total of $145 million to settle that they misled millions of consumers seeking to buy comprehensive health insurance. The FTC alleged that both Assurance and MediaAlpha deceived consumers and led them to purchase plans that did not provide the promised health care coverage, and bombarded consumers with telemarketing and robocalls.
Match Group, Inc.
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.
Vision Online Inc. and Ganadores IBR, Inc., FTC v.
Under the terms of proposed federal court orders, several defendants in the case—including the companies behind Ganadores, the companies’ owners and managers Richard and Sara Alvarez, and an employee who played a key role in the marketing of the scheme, Bryce Chamberlain—will be permanently banned from selling ecommerce or real estate coaching services and will be required to turn over substantial assets to the FTC, which will be used to provide refunds to consumers harmed by the scam
Media/Alpha
In August 2025, the FTC announce Assurance IQ, LLC and MediaAlpha, Inc. will pay a total of $145 million to settle that they misled millions of consumers seeking to buy comprehensive health insurance. The FTC alleged that both Assurance and MediaAlpha deceived consumers and led them to purchase plans that did not provide the promised health care coverage, and bombarded consumers with telemarketing and robocalls.
PepsiCo Inc., FTC v.
Evoke Wellness, LLC., FTC v.
In January 2025, the FTC sued Florida-based Evoke Wellness, LLC and Evoke Health Care Management and their officers Jonathan Mosley and James Hull for using a combination of deceptive Google search ads and telemarketing to masquerade as other substance use disorder treatment providers. The FTC announced the settlement of the case in June 2025, with the defendants being barred from the deceptive conduct and agreeing to pay a $1.9 million civil penalty.
Roca Labs, Inc.
The FTC took action against the Florida-based marketers of a line of weight-loss supplements who allegedly made baseless claims for their products, and then threatened to enforce “gag clause” provisions against consumers to stop them from posting negative reviews and testimonials online. In September 2018, a federal district court ruled in the FTC’s favor, issuing a summary judgment against the defendants, and in July 2025 the Commission announced it was returning more than $409,000 to defrauded consumers.
Ygrene Energy Fund Inc., FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission and State of California are taking action against home improvement financing provider Ygrene Energy Fund Inc. for deceiving consumers about the potential financial impact of its financing, and for unfairly recording liens on consumers’ homes without their consent. The FTC and California allege that Ygrene and its contractors falsely told consumers that the financing wouldn’t interfere with the sale or refinancing of their homes, in many instances relying on high-pressure sales tactics or outright forgery to sign consumers up.
A proposed court order would require Ygrene to stop its deceptive practices and meaningfully oversee the contractors who have served as its salesforce. As part of the settlement, Ygrene will be required to dedicate $3 million to provide relief to certain consumers whose homes are subject to the company’s liens.
In July 2025, the FTC issued more than $2.9 million in payments to consumers harmed by Ygrene’s false claims.
Voyager Digital, LLC., et al., FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with bankrupt crypto company Voyager that will permanently ban it from handling consumers’ assets and is filing suit against its former CEO, Stephen Ehrlich, for falsely claiming that customers’ accounts were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and were “safe,” even as the company was approaching an eventual bankruptcy. The complaint also names Stephen Ehrlich’s wife, Francine Ehrlich, as a relief defendant.
In the federal court complaint, the FTC charges that from at least 2018 until it declared bankruptcy in July 2022, Voyager used promises that consumers’ deposits would be “safe” to entice them to hand over their funds. When the company failed, consumers lost access to significant assets they had saved, including ongoing salary deposits, college tuition funds, and down payments for homes, according to the complaint, which notes that consumers were locked out of their cash accounts for more than a month and lost more than $1 billion in crypto assets.
In June 2025, the FTC announced that the Ehrlichs have agreed to pay $2.8 million to resolve the FTC’s charges. Stephen Ehrlich also agreed to a ban on marketing or selling retail products or services used to buy, sell, deposit, or trade cryptocurrency.
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.
GoDaddy Inc., et al., In the Matter of
Case settles charges that GoDaddy misled customers about the extent of its data security protections and failed to secure its website hosting services against attacks that could harm its customers and visitors to the customers’ websites.
Panda Benefit Services, LLC., FTC v.
In June 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it took action to stop Prosperity Benefit Services, a student loan debt relief scheme that the agency says bilked more than $20.3 million from consumers seeking debt relief by pretending to be affiliated with the Department of Education. The FTC also charged that the company and its operators falsely claimed that they would take over consumers’ student loans to get them loan forgiveness that did not exist. In May 2025, the FTC announced that the operation and its owners are permanently banned from the debt relief industry and required to turn over all assets to resolve allegations that they misled consumers.