Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

In December 2018, officers of a company that marketed and sold Nobetes, a pill they claimed treats diabetes, settled an FTC complaint alleging that the advertising claims for the product are false or unsubstantiated. The order settling the FTC’s complaint prohibits the company and its officers from undertaking future deceptive practices, including making unsubstantiated health claims, misleading consumers about the terms of “free trial” offers, billing consumers without their consent, and other practices related to the use of “expert” endorsements and consumer testimonials. In addition, it requires them to pay money to provide refunds to consumers who bought the product. In August 2019, the FTC returned $60,791 to these consumers.

The FTC alleged that while SecurTest initiated a Privacy Shield application in September 2017 with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the company did not complete the steps necessary to be certified as complying with the frameworks. Because it failed to complete certification, SecurTest was not a certified participant in the frameworks, despite representations to the contrary on its website. The settlement with the FTC prohibits SecurTest from misrepresenting its participation in any privacy or security program sponsored by a government, self-regulatory, or standard-setting organization, including the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield frameworks. It also must comply with reporting and compliance requirements.

In October 2016, a federal judge granted the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction against two people and their companies for allegedly tricking small commercial trucking businesses into paying them for federal and state motor carrier registrations by impersonating government transportation agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Transportation. The FTC alleged DOTAuthority.com Inc., DOTFilings.com Inc., Excelsior Enterprises International Inc. and JPL Enterprises International Inc. violated the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act. Under a 2018 settlement order, the DOT Authority defendants are banned from misrepresenting affiliation with any government entity and from using consumers’ billing information to obtain payments without consumers’ express consent. They must also adequately disclose that they are a private third-party service provider and any fees associated with their services. The order imposes a $900,000 judgment to provide refunds to defrauded consumers. In October 2018, the FTC sent $90,000 back to defrauded consumers. In August 2019, the FTC sent an additional $757,946 back to defrauded consumers.

The Federal Trade Commission finalized five separate proposed administrative complaints and orders enforcing the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), which prohibits businesses from using form contract provisions that bar consumers from writing or posting negative reviews online, or threatening them with legal action if they do. These are the first five Commission actions exclusively focused on enforcing the CRFA, with the complaints filed against: 1) A Waldron HVAC, LLC and its owner, Thomas J. Waldron; 2) National Floors Direct, Inc. (NFD); 3) LVTR LLC (LTVR) and its owner, Tomi A. Truax; 4) Shore to Please Vacations LLC; and 5) Staffordshire Property Management, LLC. Each respondent agreed to separate final Commission orders barring them from using such non-disparagement clauses in form contracts for goods and services, and requiring them to notify consumers who signed such contracts that the prohibited text is not enforceable. The FTC sent two letters in response to public comments in the Staffordshire matter.

The Federal Trade Commission finalized five separate proposed administrative complaints and orders enforcing the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), which prohibits businesses from using form contract provisions that bar consumers from writing or posting negative reviews online, or threatening them with legal action if they do. These are the first five Commission actions exclusively focused on enforcing the CRFA, with the complaints filed against: 1) A Waldron HVAC, LLC and its owner, Thomas J. Waldron; 2) National Floors Direct, Inc. (NFD); 3) LVTR LLC (LTVR) and its owner, Tomi A. Truax; 4) Shore to Please Vacations LLC; and 5) Staffordshire Property Management, LLC. Each respondent agreed to separate final Commission orders barring them from using such non-disparagement clauses in form contracts for goods and services, and requiring them to notify consumers who signed such contracts that the prohibited text is not enforceable. The FTC sent two letters in response to public comments in the Staffordshire matter.

The Federal Trade Commission finalized five separate proposed administrative complaints and orders enforcing the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), which prohibits businesses from using form contract provisions that bar consumers from writing or posting negative reviews online, or threatening them with legal action if they do. These are the first five Commission actions exclusively focused on enforcing the CRFA, with the complaints filed against: 1) A Waldron HVAC, LLC and its owner, Thomas J. Waldron; 2) National Floors Direct, Inc. (NFD); 3) LVTR LLC (LTVR) and its owner, Tomi A. Truax; 4) Shore to Please Vacations LLC; and 5) Staffordshire Property Management, LLC. Each respondent agreed to separate final Commission orders barring them from using such non-disparagement clauses in form contracts for goods and services, and requiring them to notify consumers who signed such contracts that the prohibited text is not enforceable. The FTC sent two letters in response to public comments in the Staffordshire matter.

The Federal Trade Commission finalized five separate proposed administrative complaints and orders enforcing the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), which prohibits businesses from using form contract provisions that bar consumers from writing or posting negative reviews online, or threatening them with legal action if they do. These are the first five Commission actions exclusively focused on enforcing the CRFA, with the complaints filed against: 1) A Waldron HVAC, LLC and its owner, Thomas J. Waldron; 2) National Floors Direct, Inc. (NFD); 3) LVTR LLC (LTVR) and its owner, Tomi A. Truax; 4) Shore to Please Vacations LLC; and 5) Staffordshire Property Management, LLC. Each respondent agreed to separate final Commission orders barring them from using such non-disparagement clauses in form contracts for goods and services, and requiring them to notify consumers who signed such contracts that the prohibited text is not enforceable. The FTC sent two letters in response to public comments in the Staffordshire matter.

The Federal Trade Commission finalized five separate proposed administrative complaints and orders enforcing the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), which prohibits businesses from using form contract provisions that bar consumers from writing or posting negative reviews online, or threatening them with legal action if they do. These are the first five Commission actions exclusively focused on enforcing the CRFA, with the complaints filed against: 1) A Waldron HVAC, LLC and its owner, Thomas J. Waldron; 2) National Floors Direct, Inc. (NFD); 3) LVTR LLC (LTVR) and its owner, Tomi A. Truax; 4) Shore to Please Vacations LLC; and 5) Staffordshire Property Management, LLC. Each respondent agreed to separate final Commission orders barring them from using such non-disparagement clauses in form contracts for goods and services, and requiring them to notify consumers who signed such contracts that the prohibited text is not enforceable. The FTC sent two letters in response to public comments in the Staffordshire matter.

The FTC is mailing 53,595 refund checks totaling $748,070 to consumers nationwide who signed up for an online auction kit that was supposed to be free, but wasn’t. The kit actually cost consumers up to $59.95 per month if they failed to cancel a trial membership in a business opportunity program called Online Supplier.

In November 2018, the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against recidivist Tuan Duong, among others, alleging he falsely promised to reduce students’ monthly loan payments or to eliminate or reduce their educational debts, but widely failed to deliver those services. The defendants also allegedly promoted a 96 percent success rate in reducing consumers’ student loan payments. In fact, the FTC alleged, the consumers who purchased these services often did not receive any debt relief and lost hundreds of dollars. The FTC alleged that the defendants charged consumers illegal upfront fees of $300 or more for these purported debt relief services. A federal court temporarily halted the scheme and froze its assets.

In May 2019, Duong, the ringleader of the scheme, agreed to settle the Commission’s charges that he bilked $11 million from consumers who were trying to reduce their student loan monthly payments or get loan forgiveness. Under the modified court order, Duong admits he violated the 2016 order and is now banned from the telemarketing industry. The proposed modified final order against Duong contains both injunctive and monetary relief. The order contains an $11,000,215.25 judgment as compensatory relief to the FTC and permanently bans Duong from the telemarketing industry.

In July 2019, both Avitia-Pena, president of Impetus Enterprise, Inc., and Jimmy Calderon, manager of Capital Sun Investments, LLC, settled the FTC’s charges alleging they conducted student loan debt relief operations associated with Duong. The $11 million settlement to be paid by Avitia-Pena represents gross revenues of Impetus Enterprise Inc.’s student loan debt relief operation. The order against Calderon and Capital Sun Investments contains a suspended judgment for $1.3 million, the gross revenues of Capital Sun Investments, LLC’s operation.

Equifax, Inc. agreed to pay at least $575 million, and potentially up to $700 million, as part of a global settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and 50 U.S. states and territories to settle allegations that the credit reporting company's failed to take reasonable steps to secure its network. 

The Federal Trade Commission sued Lights of America Inc. and related defendants for violating federal law by misrepresenting the light output and life expectancy of their LED bulbs, and falsely comparing the brightness of their LED bulbs with that of other light bulbs. A federal court ordered the defendants to pay $21 million to the FTC to provide refunds and banned the defendants from misrepresenting material facts about lighting products. Millions of people bought these LED bulbs at Costco, Sam’s Club, Walmart, hardware stores, grocery stores, and on Amazon.com. The FTC has already returned more than $12 million to people who bought these light bulbs. The claims process is still open.