Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

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. 

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.

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

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. 

In July 2025, at the Federal Trade Commission’s request, a federal court temporarily halted an alleged debt relief services scheme that targeted seniors, including veterans, using a wide range of deceptive conduct, including falsely impersonating consumers’ banks and credit card companies as well as government agencies.

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.

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.

As a result of a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit, a federal court has temporarily halted the operations and frozen the assets of a phantom debt collection scheme and its operators. The scheme has operated under numerous names, including Blackrock Services, Blackstone Legal Group, Capital Legal Services, Quest Legal Group, Viking Legal Services, and others.

According to the FTC’s complaint, the operators of this scheme are Ryan and Mitchell Evans and their affiliated companies. Debt collectors working for the scheme’s operators and their affiliated companies have sent consumers deceptive warning and collection letters or called them directly, claiming that consumers owed a debt of some kind and threatening legal action, wage garnishment, negative impacts to consumers’ credit, and even arrest if they don’t pay. The debts described in these letters and calls never existed, according to the complaint, and the defendants have no basis to make legal threats toward consumers.

In June 2025, the FTC announced a settlement that would ban Blackstone Legal and its owners from all debt collection and require surrender of assets.

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.

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.  

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. 

As a result of a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit, a federal court has temporarily halted the operations of a wide-ranging business opportunity and credit repair scam that has operated under the name “Growth Cave” since at least 2020.

The FTC’s complaint against the operation and its owners and officers, Lucas Lee-Tyson, Osmany Batte (also known as “Ozzie Blessed”), and Jordan Marksberry, alleges that the Growth Cave operation has taken approximately $50 million from consumers using false promises of huge income.

In May 2025, the FTC filed an amended complaint in this case, adding two defendants based on information the FTC learned after the original filing.

The amended complaint names LLT Research as a new defendant in the case and adds as a relief defendant Friendly Solar, Inc. In January 2026, the FTC announced court orders with all defendants settling the Commission’s complaint.

Online cash advance company Cleo AI has agreed to pay $17 million to settle the Federal Trade Commission’s allegations that the company deceived consumers about how much money they could get and how fast that money could be available. The complaint, filed in federal district court along with the proposed settlement order, also alleges that Cleo made it difficult for consumers to cancel Cleo’s subscription service.