Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

In December 2019, the FTC announced The University of Phoenix and its parent company agreed to pay a record $191 million to resolve allegations that they used deceptive advertisements falsely touting their relationships and job opportunities with companies such as AT&T, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Twitter, and The American Red Cross. The settlement order requires UOP to pay $50 million in cash, as well as cancel $141 million in debts owed to the school by students harmed by the deceptive ads.

In March 2021, the FTC sent payments totaling nearly $50 million to more than 147,000 UOP students who may have been lured by allegedly deceptive advertisements.

In late September 2023, the U.S. Department of Education announced that it will forgive nearly $37 million in federal loans for more than 1,200 students affected by the University of Phoenix’s deceptive practices, based in part on the FTC’s 2019 case.

A federal court granted the Federal Trade Commission’s request to temporarily shut down an alleged pyramid scheme known as “Success By Health,” and to freeze the assets of the company and its executives.

In May 2023, a federal court sided with the Federal Trade Commission, ruling that James D. Noland, Jr. illegally owned and operated two pyramid schemes—Success By Health (SBH) and VOZ Travel—in violation of the FTC Act and that Noland violated a previous federal court order barring him from pyramid schemes and from misrepresenting multilevel marketing participants’ income potential.

In September 2023, the FTC announced online shoe retailer Hey Dude, Inc. (Hey Dude) will pay $1.95 million to settle charges that the company misled consumers by suppressing negative reviews, including more than 80 percent of reviews that failed to provide four or more stars out of a possible five. The FTC also contends the company violated the Commission’s Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule in several ways between 2020 and 2022. In August 2024, the FTC announced it was returning $1.9 million to defrauded consumers.

The FTC alleged that the defendants fraudulently marketed investment-related services that they claimed would enable consumers to make consistent profits and beat the market. Instead, the FTC alleges that consumers—many of them retirees, older adults, and immigrants—have lost at least $137 million to the scam in just the last three years. The defendants claimed in their pitches that consumers don’t need a lot of time, money, or experience, and that the global coronavirus pandemic represents a great time to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to learn their secret trading techniques, claiming in one ad that the pandemic “…might be the most exciting opportunity in decades!” The defendants also made claims like “Learn how you could DOUBLE or TRIPLE your account in One Week!” In March 2023, the FTC sent payments totaling more than $2.4 million to consumers in this case.

The Federal Trade Commission filed suit against American Screening for failing to deliver on promises that it could quickly ship products like face masks, sanitizer, and other personal protective equipment (PPE) related to the coronavirus pandemic.

The lawsuits allege that the companies violated the FTC’s Mail, Internet and Telephone Order Rule (Mail Order Rule), which requires that companies notify consumers of shipping delays in a timely manner and give consumers the chance to cancel orders and receive prompt refunds.

The Federal Trade Commission has taken action against a group of Massachusetts- and New Hampshire-based clothing accessories companies, along with their owner, Thomas Bates, for falsely claiming that certain company products were manufactured in the U.S. The FTC’s order stops the companies and Bates from making deceptive claims about products being “Made in USA” and requires them to pay a monetary judgment.

In November, 2024, the FTC sent more than $140,000 to consumers who were deceived by false Made in USA claims from New England-based clothing companies Chaucer Accessories and Bates Accessories, along with Bates Retail Group. 

The FTC obtained an order against education technology provider Edmodo for collecting personal data from children without obtaining their parent’s consent and using that data for advertising, in violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule (COPPA Rule), and for unlawfully outsourcing its COPPA compliance responsibilities to schools. 

The FTC and six states filed a lawsuit against rental listing platform Roomster Corp. and its owners John Shriber and Roman Zaks for allegedly duping consumers seeking affordable housing by paying for fake reviews and then charging for access to phony listings.  Separately, the FTC and the states filed a proposed order against Jonathan Martinez—who allegedly sold Roomster tens of thousands of fake reviews—requiring him to pay $100,000 and cooperate in the FTC’s case against Roomster.

In February 2018, the Federal Trade Commission charged student loan debt relief scammer Brandon Frere and his companies, including Ameritech Financial, with bilking millions of dollars from thousands of consumers by falsely promising that consumers’ monthly payments would go towards paying off their student loans. In October 2020, Frere and his companies settled FTC’s charges. In August 2023, the FTC and the Department of Justice sent more than $9 million in refunds to consumers who lost money.

The FTC sued the health information company Surescripts, alleging that the company employed illegal vertical and horizontal restraints in order to maintain its monopolies over two electronic prescribing, or “e-prescribing,” markets: routing and eligibility.  According to the complaint, Surescripts monopolized two separate markets for e-prescription services: The market for routing e-prescriptions, which uses technology that enables health care providers to send electronic prescriptions directly to pharmacies; and the market for determining eligibility, a separate service that enables health care providers to electronically determine patients’ eligibility for prescription coverage through access to insurance coverage and benefits information, usually through a pharmacy benefit manager.The FTC alleges that Surescripts intentionally set out to keep e-prescription routing and eligibility customers on both sides of each market from using additional platforms (a practice known as multihoming) using anticompetitive exclusivity agreements, threats, and other exclusionary tactics. Among other things, the FTC alleges that Surescripts took steps to increase the costs of routing and eligibility multihoming through loyalty and exclusivity contracts.

In July 2023, the FTC filed a proposed order that would resolve the Commission’s charges. The proposed order prohibits Surescripts from engaging in exclusionary conduct and executing or enforcing non-compete agreements with current and former employees. The proposed order also goes beyond routing and eligibility, extending the same prohibitions to Surescripts’ medication history services and the company’s on-demand formulary services.