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.
EnCap/EP Energy, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission will require the divestiture of energy producer EP Energy Corp.’s entire business and assets in Utah. The divestiture will resolve the agency’s allegations that EnCap Energy Capital Fund XI, L.P.’s proposed $1.445 billion acquisition of EP Energy Corp. would eliminate head-to-head competition between two of only four significant producers and otherwise harm competition for the sale of Uinta Basin waxy crude oil to Salt Lake City refiners. According to the complaint, the proposed acquisition could also increase the likelihood of collusion or coordination among the remaining competitors in the Uinta Basin. On Sept. 14, 2022, the Commission announced the final consent agreement in this matter.
On July 7, 2025, The Federal Trade Commission approved in part and denied in part a petition to modify the final consent order in this matter.
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.
Care.com, Inc., FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against Care.com (Care), alleging that the child and older adult care gig platform has systematically deceived caregivers who were looking for jobs while failing to give families seeking care a simple way to cancel their paid memberships.
In a federal court complaint, the FTC alleges that Care’s marketing messages about both the number of jobs available on their site and the amount workers could expect to be paid were deceptive.
Care has agreed to a settlement that will require it to turn over $8.5 million to be used to refund consumers harmed by their practices, as well as requiring the company to be able to back up the earnings claims it makes and be honest about the number of jobs available on their site.
The FTC on June 24, 2025, sent more than $8.1 million to consumers harmed by Care.com’s deceptive practices.
Ascend Ecom
The FTC has filed a lawsuit against an online business opportunity scheme that it alleges has falsely claimed its “cutting edge” AI-powered tools would help consumers quickly earn thousands of dollars a month in passive income by opening online storefronts. According to the complaint, the scheme has defrauded consumers of at least $25 million.
According to the FTC’s complaint, the operators of the scheme charge consumers tens of thousands of dollars to start online stores on ecommerce platforms such as Amazon, Walmart, Etsy, and TikTok, while also requiring them to spend tens of thousands more on inventory. Ascend’s advertising content claimed the company was a leader in ecommerce, using proprietary software and artificial intelligence to maximize clients’ business success.
The operators of Ascend Ecom, an online business opportunity that allegedly cost consumers millions of dollars, will be banned from selling business opportunities and required to turn over assets to the Federal Trade Commission under the terms of a proposed court order.
Statement of Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson Joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak In the Matter of Non-Alcoholic Beverages Price Discrimination Investigation
Zaappaaz LLC
The Federal Trade Commission filed suit against Zaappaaz, the operators of wrist-band.com and other online storefronts, for failing to deliver on promises that they could quickly ship products like face masks, sanitizer, and other personal protective equipment (PPE) related to the coronavirus pandemic.
The lawsuit alleges that the company 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.
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.
Empire Holdings Group LLC, et al. FTC v.
The FTC has charged a business opportunity scheme with falsely claiming to help consumers build an “AI-powered Ecommerce Empire” by participating in its training programs that can cost almost $2,000 or by buying a “done for you” online storefront for tens of thousands of dollars. The scheme, known as Ecommerce Empire Builders (EEB), claims consumers can potentially make millions of dollars, but the FTC’s complaint alleges that those profits fail to materialize.
As a result of the FTC’s complaint, a federal court issued an order temporarily halting the scheme and putting it under the control of a receiver. The FTC’s case against the scheme is ongoing and will be decided by a federal court.
In May 2025, EEB and its owner, Peter Prusinowski (also known as Peter Pru), agreed to a court order that bans them from selling business opportunities and require them to turn over assets to the FTC to be used for refunds to consumers.
accessiBe Inc.
In January 2025, the FTC announced a complaint and proposed order require software provider accessiBe to pay $1 million to settle allegations that it misrepresented the ability of its AI-powered web accessibility tool to make any website compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) for people with disabilities. The Commission approved the order as final in April 2025.
Statement on the Recusal of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak In the Matter of Caremark, Rx, LLC
Xlear, Inc., U.S. v.
In October 2021, the FTC sued Xlear, Inc., a Utah-based company, for violating the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act, alleging that it falsely pitched its saline nasal sprays as an effective way to prevent and treat COVID-19. DOJ filed the complaint on the FTC’s behalf. In March 2025, the DOJ agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice.
Statement of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak
Vroom, Inc. FTC v.
In July 2024, the FTC took action against online used car dealer Vroom for misrepresenting that it thoroughly examined all vehicles before listing them for sale and failing to obtain consumers’ consent to shipment delays or provide prompt refunds when cars weren’t delivered in the time Vroom promised. The company agreed to a proposed settlement that would require the company to pay $1 million to refund consumers harmed by the company’s conduct.
In March 2025, the FTC sent more than $934,000 in refunds to consumers who were harmed by online used car dealer Vroom’s shipment delays.
Evolv Technologies
Announcing settlement Evolv Technologies over allegations that the company made false claims about its AI-powered security screening system