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.
Chair Khan Letter to Sen. Lee Regarding Antitrust Litigation Costs
Chair Khan Letter to Sen. Hagerty Regarding Antitrust Litigation Costs
Chair Khan Letter to Sen. Van Hollen Regarding Antitrust Litigation Costs
Concurring Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson COPPA Rule Amendments
Greystar et al., FTC and Colorado v.
The Federal Trade Commission and the State of Colorado are taking action against Greystar, the nation’s largest multi-family rental property manager, for deceiving consumers about monthly rent costs by tacking on numerous mandatory fees on top of advertised prices.
According to the complaint filed by the FTC and Colorado, these hidden fees have cost consumers living in Greystar properties hundreds of millions of dollars since at least 2019, and consumers often have not discovered the fees until after they have signed a lease or moved in.
Greystar agreed to pay $23 million to the FTC and $1 million to the State of Colorado to resolve the allegations.
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson Joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak In the Matter of Deere & Company
Concurring Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson Joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak Regarding the Second Pharmacy Benefit Managers Interim Staff Report
Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part FTC v. Handy Technologies, Inc.
Handy Technologies
The Federal Trade Commission, along with the New York Attorney General, are taking action against gig economy company Handy Technologies for making a broad array of deceptive claims about how much money workers on its platform could earn.
The complaint charges that Handy, which currently does business as Angi Services, has peppered its advertisements with earnings claims that don’t reflect the reality for the overwhelming majority of workers on the platform. The complaint also charges that Handy has failed to clearly disclose fees and fines that have led to millions of dollars being withheld from workers.
Under the terms of a proposed settlement order, Handy would be required to turn over $2.95 million to be used to provide refunds to harmed workers, and make substantial changes to ensure that workers give clear consent to any fees charged by the company and that the company gives workers clear direction about how to avoid fines.