Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

In April 2019, the FTC announced that 16 defendants settled charges that they deceptively marketed “cognitive improvement” supplements using sham news websites containing false and unsubstantiated efficacy claims, references to non-existent clinical studies, and fraudulent consumer and celebrity endorsements. The FTC also alleged the defendants used affiliate marketers to make deceptive claims for products including Geniux, Xcel, EVO, and Ion-Z. The settlements ban the defendants from engaging in similar conduct in the future. In February 2020, the Commission announced it was sending refund checks totaling over $551,000 to defrauded consumers.

Office Depot, Inc. and its tech support software provider Support.com, Inc., settled Federal Trade Commission allegations that the two companies tricked customers into buying millions of dollars' worth of computer repair and technical services by deceptively claiming their software had found malware on the customers' computers. 

The FTC and the State of Connecticut sued the marketers of LeanSpa in December 2011, charging that they used fake websites to promote acai berry and “colon cleanse” weight-loss products, and falsely told consumers they could receive free trials by paying a nominal shipping and handling cost. In reality, consumers paid $79.95 for the trial, and for recurring monthly shipments of the product that were hard to cancel. The LeanSpa marketers settled the complaint in 2014, agreeing to stop their allegedly deceptive practices and surrender assets for consumer redress. In October 2015, the FTC announced it was mailing more than 23,000 checks totaling over $3.7 million to consumers who bought LeanSpa products. In December 2019, the FTC sent a second round of checks totaling over $321,000 to consumers who bought LeanSpa products.

The operator of a job placement company that deceived consumers with false promises of access to high-paying finance jobs and resume repair services for non-existent jobs will be permanently banned from providing employment services under the terms of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.

In November 2017, the Federal Trade Commission charged a Georgia-based debt collection business with tricking people into paying money for debts they did not owe. A federal court temporarily halted the scheme and froze its assets at the FTC’s request. In September 2018, the operators settled the FTC’s claims and are now banned from the debt collection business and from buying or selling debt. The FTC mailed refund checks in September 2019 totaling more than $516,000 to 3,977 consumers as part of the settlement.

In July 2017, the FTC obtained court orders against this Maryland-based office supply operation charged with tricking small businesses, non-profit organizations, and other consumers into paying for overpriced office and cleaning supplies they never ordered. The stipulated orders setting the FTC’s complaint barred the company and its principals from telemarketing office and cleaning supplies. It also imposed a financial judgment against them, resulting in the Commission sending  refund checks totaling more than $11.6 million to small businesses and other organizations in August 2019.

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 reached settlements with a group of St. Louis-based defendants who used deceptive Internet pop-up ads to trick consumers into buying unnecessary technical support services.

In July 2019, the FTC sent refunds totaling more than $708,000 to consumers and businesses that had been tricked into paying for unordered light bulbs and cleaning supplies. The Commission’s February 2016 complaint alleged the Lighting X-Change defendants’ telemarketers failed to disclose to consumers that they were making a sales call, pretended they had a previous business relationship with the recipients, and falsely claimed that they wanted to send a free sample or catalog. Instead, they sent unordered light bulbs and cleaning supplies without disclosing the price up-front, and billed the recipients much more than market price for the products. A July 2017 order settling the charges banned the defendants from the illegal shipping and billing practices, and imposed a financial penalty that was used to provide the consumer refunds.

A federal district court in Arizona entered three stipulated orders on February 26, 2019, settling the FTC’s case against the operators of a sham grant scheme known as Premium Grants. The defendants targeted individuals, many of whom are elderly or have disabilities, who sought help with paying personal expenses such as medical bills, home repairs, and debt.

Video social networking app Musical.ly, Inc., now known as TikTok, agreed to pay $5.7 million to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the company illegally collected personal information from children in violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. 

On 2/13/2008, the Commission filed a complaint in federal district court charging Cephalon, Inc. with preventing competition to its branded drug Provigil. The conduct under challenge includes paying four firms to refrain from selling generic versions of Provigil until 2012. Cephalon’s anticompetitive scheme, according to the Commission, denies patients access to lower-cost, generic versions of Provigil and forces consumers and other purchasers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars a year more for Provigil. According to the complaint, Cephalon entered into agreements with four generic drug manufacturers that each planned to sell a generic version of Provigil. Each of these companies had challenged the only remaining patent covering Provigil, one relating to the size of particles used in the product. The complaint charges that Cephalon was able to induce each of the generic companies to abandon its patent challenge and agree to refrain from selling a generic version of Provigil until 2012 by agreeing to pay the companies a total amount in excess of $200 million. In so doing, Cephalon achieved a result that assertion of its patent rights alone could not. In 2008, this case was transferred from the District Court of District of Columbia to the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.