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.
San Juan IPA, Inc.
San Juan IPA, Inc., an independent physician association in Farmington, New Mexico, has agreed to pay a $263,000 civil penalty to the FTC to settle allegations that it violated a 2005 order. The 2005 case alleged that San Juan IPA orchestrated agreements among competing member physicians to coordinate joint pricing, collectively negotiated contracts with payors on behalf of members, and refused to deal with payors except on collectively determined price terms.
To remedy these allegations, the 2005 order prohibited San Juan from, among other things, entering into, maintaining, enforcing, or facilitating any agreement or understanding among any physicians (1) to negotiate on behalf of any physician with any payor, (2) to deal, refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal with any payor, (3) regarding any term upon which any physician deals with a payor, including price terms, and (4) not to deal individually with any payor or not to deal with a payor except through the IPA. The order also prohibited San Juan from attempting to engage in, or encouraging any person to engage in, any prohibited action.
ARKO/GPM Investments, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission required ARKO Corp. and its subsidiary GPM to roll back anticompetitive provisions of their acquisition of 60 Express Stop retail fuel outlets from Corrigan Oil Company last year. The complaint alleged that as originally proposed, the agreement not to compete that ARKO and GPM required Corrigan to sign as part of the acquisition harmed customers in local retail gasoline and retail diesel fuel markets throughout Michigan and Ohio. The order required them to amend a non-compete agreement they imposed on Corrigan, agree to obtain prior approval from the Commission before acquiring retail fuel assets under certain circumstances, and return to Corrigan five retail fuel outlets, among other provisions. On Aug. 9, 2022, the Commission announced the final consent agreement in this matter.
Yellowstone Capital LLC, FTC v.
Yellowstone Capital, a provider of merchant cash advances, will pay more than $9.8 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it took money from businesses’ bank accounts without permission and deceived them about the amount of financing business owners would receive and other features of its financing products.
Merchant cash advances are a form of financing in which a company provides money to a small business up front in exchange for a larger amount repaid through daily automatic payments. In this case, the FTC alleged that Yellowstone and its owners continued withdrawing money from businesses’ bank accounts for days after their balance had been repaid. The complaint alleged that these unauthorized withdrawals left businesses without needed cash and that any refunds from the company could take weeks or months.
The Federal Trade Commission is sending 7,731 checks totaling more than $9.7 million to small businesses who were harmed by Yellowstone Capital, a merchant cash advance company that withdrew money from their bank accounts without permission.
Gravity Defyer, FTC v.
In June 2022, the FTC took action against California-based Gravity Defyer Medical Technology Corporation and its owner Alexander Elnekaveh, filing a complaint in federal district court to permanently stop their allegedly deceptive pain-relief claims for Gravity Defyer footwear. In its complaint the FTC alleged that Elnekaveh violated a 2001 order barring him from such allegedly deceptive advertising by making scientifically unsupported claims and using misleading consumer testimonials to sell Gravity Defyer products. In February 2025, the FTC announced a final order setting the case, in which the defendants were barred from the allegedly deceptive advertising and required to pay a civil penalty of $175,000.
Twitter, Inc., U.S. v.
The FTC alleged that Twitter’s deceptive use of user email addresses and phone numbers violated the FTC Act and the 2011 Commission order.
Publishers Business Services, Inc., et al.
Publishers Business Services, Inc., along with other defendants previously settled FTC allegations that the defendants deceptively telemarketed magazine subscriptions. The defendants also allegedly harassed consumers at work and at home, in an attempt to get them to pay for the subscriptions, and engaged in other threatening conduct over the phone. In May 2022, the Commission announced a settlement of the monetary component of the order.
AMG Services, Inc.
The Federal Trade Commission, working jointly with the U.S. Department of Justice, is mailing 1,179,803 refund checks totaling more than $505 million to people who were deceived by a massive payday lending scheme operated by AMG Services, Inc. and Scott A. Tucker.
U.S. v. Lithionics Battery, LLC
The Department of Justice filed a civil penalties complaint alleging that Lithionics Battery, LLC ("Lithionics") and Steven Tartaglia violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) and violated the Made in USA Labeling Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 323 (the “MUSA Labeling Rule”), in connection with the labeling and advertising of certain battery systems containing significant imported content as “Made in USA." The complaint further alleges that Lithionics' expressed or implied representations that its products are all or virtually all made in the United States are false or unsubstantiated.