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.
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.
GoDaddy Inc., et al., In the Matter of
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.
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.
Enbridge and Spectra Energy
Enbridge Inc. and Spectra Energy Corp agreed to settle FTC charges that their proposed merger likely would harm competition in the market for pipeline transportation of natural gas in three production areas off the coast of Louisiana. According to the FTC’s complaint, the merger likely would reduce natural gas pipeline competition in three offshore natural gas producing areas in the Gulf of Mexico—Green Canyon, Walker Ridge and Keathley Canyon—leading to higher prices for natural gas pipeline transportation from those areas. In portions of the affected areas, the FTC alleged, the merging parties’ pipelines are the two pipelines located closest to certain wells and, as a result, are likely the lowest cost pipeline transportation options for those wells. According to the FTC, the merger would give Canada-based Enbridge an ownership interest in both pipelines, which will give it access to competitively sensitive information of the Discovery Pipeline, as well as significant voting rights over the Discovery Pipeline. Access to its competitor’s competitively sensitive information and significant voting rights would provide Enbridge with the incentive and opportunity to unilaterally increase pipeline transportation costs for natural gas producers located in the affected areas. The exchange of information also may increase the likelihood of tacit or explicit anticompetitive coordination between the Walker Ridge Pipeline and the Discovery Pipeline. Under the settlement with the FTC, the companies have agreed to conditions that will preserve competition in those areas.The consent agreement requires Enbridge to establish firewalls to limit its access to non-public information about the Discovery Pipeline. Board members of the Spectra-affiliated companies that hold a 40 percent share in the Discovery Pipeline must recuse themselves from any vote involving the pipeline, with two limited exceptions. Also under the order, Enbridge must notify the Commission before acquiring an ownership interest in any natural gas pipeline operating in the Green Canyon, Walker Ridge and Keathley Canyon areas, or increasing the 40 percent ownership interest of Spectra affiliate DCP Midstream Partners, LP in the Discovery Pipeline.
In April 2025, the FTC approved a petition by Enbridge Inc. to reopen and set aside the Commission’s 2017 final consent order related to Enbridge’s merger with Spectra Energy Corp.
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.
B4B Corp.
The Federal Trade Commission, jointly with the Department of Justice and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have sued a New York-based marketer of herbal tea, seeking to permanently block deceptive ads that claim its Earth Tea is clinically proven to treat, cure, and prevent COVID-19.
Career Step, LLC, FTC v.
In July 2024, the FTC announced that online career-training company, Career Step, LLC has been ordered to pay $43.5 million in debt cancellation and cash to resolve charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission that alleged the company lured consumers, specifically servicemembers and their families, with deceptive ads that falsely touted inflated employment outcomes, job placement, and partnerships with prominent companies.
In March 2025, the FTC sent more than $15.5 million in refunds to consumers who were harmed by Career Step’s deceptive advertising.
Aqua Finance
A Federal Trade Commission action against household water treatment funding company Aqua Finance, Inc. (AFI) has led to a settlement that will provide $20 million in refunds and an additional $23.6 million in debt forgiveness for consumers harmed by its dealers’ deceptive sales tactics.
The FTC’s complaint against AFI charges that the company’s nationwide network of dealers went door-to-door, deceiving consumers about the financing terms for water filtering and softening products. According to the complaint, the bogus claims left consumers with thousands of dollars in unexpected debt and huge interest payments, while its financing terms impaired some consumers’ ability to sell their homes.
In February 2025, the Commission more than $19.8 million in refunds to consumers who were harmed by deceptive sales tactics from household water treatment funding company Aqua Finance.
First American Payment Systems, LP
The Federal Trade Commission took action against payment processing company First American Payment Systems and two of its sales affiliates for targeting small- and medium-sized businesses. The FTC alleges that the defendants made false claims about fees and cost savings to lure merchants, many of whom had limited English proficiency. Once merchants were enrolled, the defendants withdrew funds from their accounts without their consent, and made it difficult and expensive for them to cancel the service. Under a proposed federal court order, the defendants will be required to return $4.9 million to harmed businesses, stop their deception, and make it easier for merchants to cancel their services.
Guardian Service Industries, Inc., In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission ordered building services contractor Guardian Service Industries, Inc. (Guardian) to stop enforcing a no-hire agreement that prohibits building owners and managers from hiring Guardian’s employees. In a complaint filed against Guardian, the FTC alleges that Guardian—which operates in New York and New Jersey—includes no-hire agreements in its customer service agreements with residential building owners. These agreements prohibit building owners and competing building service contractors from hiring Guardian’s employees.
Cognosphere, LLC, U.S. v.
Cognosphere has agreed to pay $20 million and to block children under 16 from making in-game purchases without parental consent to settle FTC allegations the company violated a children’s privacy law and deceived children and other users about the real costs of in-game transactions and odds of obtaining rare prizes.
Greystar et al., FTC and Colorado v.
The Federal Trade Commission and the State of Colorado are taking action against Greystar, the nation’s largest multi-family rental property manager, for deceiving consumers about monthly rent costs by tacking on numerous mandatory fees on top of advertised prices.
According to the complaint filed by the FTC and Colorado, these hidden fees have cost consumers living in Greystar properties hundreds of millions of dollars since at least 2019, and consumers often have not discovered the fees until after they have signed a lease or moved in.
Greystar agreed to pay $23 million to the FTC and $1 million to the State of Colorado to resolve the allegations.
Traffic and Funnels, LLC., FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission has obtained proposed orders against the operators of a wide-ranging scheme known as “The Sales Mentor” that made millions by falsely promising consumers that they could make big money from telemarketing sales.
The defendants have agreed to proposed court orders that would require them to pay a total of $1 million for consumer refunds.
In a federal court complaint, the FTC charged the Tennessee-based group of companies, their owners, their officers, and a former sales director with deceiving consumers to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars for supposed telemarketing training programs that rarely, if ever, delivered on what was promised. In addition, the FTC said the companies continued to make deceptive earnings claims even after they received the FTC’s Notices of Penalty Offenses on money-making opportunities and on endorsements and testimonials warning them that such conduct is illegal.
In January 2025, the FTC sent more than $960,000 in refunds to consumers who paid a job scheme known as “The Sales Mentor” that, according to the FTC, falsely promised consumers that they would make big money from telemarketing sales.
Mobilewalla, Inc., In the Matter of
Finalizing an order prohibiting Mobilewalla from unlawfully tracking and selling sensitive location data from users.
Intellivision, In the Matter of
Announcing settlement with IntelliVision Technologies over allegations that the company made false claims about its AI-powered facial recognition software.
FTC finalized order against IntelliVision Technologies Corp., settling allegations that the company made false, misleading, or unsubstantiated claims that its AI-powered facial recognition software was free of gender or racial bias.
FTC v HOPE Services
In January 2025, the FTC sent more than $49,000 in refunds to consumers who paid a sham mortgage relief operation that told financially distressed homeowners it would help get their mortgages modified, but instead effectively stole their mortgage payments.
H&R Block, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against tax preparation company H&R Block for unfairly deleting consumers’ tax data and requiring them to contact customer service when they downgrade to more affordable online products, and deceptively marketing their products as “free” when they were not free for many consumers. These practices cost consumers time and money.
A proposed FTC settlement would stop H&R Block from unfairly requiring consumers seeking to downgrade to a cheaper H&R Block product to contact customer service, from unfairly deleting users' previously entered data and from making deceptive claims about “free” tax filing.
The tax-filing company has agreed to a proposed settlement that will require the company to make a number of changes for the 2025 tax filing season in addition to longer-term changes. The settlement would also require the company to pay $7 million to the FTC to be used to redress consumers harmed by the company’s unlawful practices.
In January 2025, The Federal Trade Commission finalized an order requiring the tax preparation company H&R Block to make a number of changes for the 2025 tax filing season in addition to longer-term changes. The settlement also requires the company to pay $7 million to be used to compensate consumers harmed by the company’s unlawful practices.