Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

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.

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 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. 

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.

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.

The FTC alleged that Facebook violated its privacy promises to consumers and subsequently violated a 2012 Commission order.

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.

The Federal Trade Commission moved to block Tempur Sealy International, Inc.’s (Tempur Sealy) proposed $4 billion acquisition of Mattress Firm Group Inc. (Mattress Firm).

The Commission issued an administrative complaint and authorized a lawsuit in federal court to block the acquisition, alleging that Tempur Sealy—the world’s largest mattress supplier and manufacturer—will have the ability and incentive to suppress competition and raise prices for mattresses for millions of consumers once it acquires Mattress Firm.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.