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.
Microsoft/Activision Blizzard, In the Matter of
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.
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.
Growth Cave, LLC
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.
Cleo AI, Inc., FTC v.
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.
Facebook, Inc., In the Matter of
The FTC alleged that Facebook violated its privacy promises to consumers and subsequently violated a 2012 Commission order.
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.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. and Mattress Firm Group Inc., In the Matter of
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.