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.
Dave, Inc., FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission has referred its federal court case against online cash advance firm Dave Inc. to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) which has filed an amended complaint in the case that names Dave CEO Jason Wilk as a defendant and seeks civil penalties.
The FTC first brought its case against Dave in November 2024, charging that the company uses misleading marketing to deceive consumers about the amount of its cash advances, charges consumers undisclosed fees, and charges so-called “tips” to consumers without their consent.
Lindsay Chevrolet, et al, FTC and State of Maryland v
The FTC and Maryland Attorney General charged Lindsay Automotive Group with systematically deceiving and overcharging car-buying consumers for years, costing them millions of dollars in junk fees and unwanted add-on products.
Leader Automotive Group, et al., FTC and State of Illinois v.
A group of 10 car dealerships doing business as Leader Automotive Group and their parent company, AutoCanada, will be required to pay $20 million to settle allegations they systematically defrauded consumers looking to buy vehicles as a result of a lawsuit by the Federal Trade Commission and state of Illinois.
In addition to paying $20 million, which will be used to refund harmed consumers, the proposed settlement also would require the companies to make clear disclosures of a car’s offering price—the actual price any consumer can pay to get the car, excluding only required government charges—and get consent from buyers for any charges. The $20 million proposed monetary judgment is the largest the FTC has secured against an auto dealer.
Concurring Statement of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter Regarding the Final Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees
Statement of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak Regarding Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson Regarding the Unfair or Deceptive Fees Rulemaking
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Regarding the Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees
Michael Hewitt, In the Matter of
Cancer Recovery Foundation, Inc
The Federal Trade Commission and 10 states are suing sham charity Cancer Recovery Foundation International, also known as Women’s Cancer Fund, and its operator, Gregory B. Anderson, for deceiving generous donors who sought to offer financial support to women battling cancer and their families.
In a complaint filed in federal court, the FTC and states allege that, from 2017 to 2022, Women’s Cancer Fund collected more than $18 million from donors. The sham charity claimed that it would use the donated funds to help women who were undergoing treatment for cancer and their families pay for basic needs. Instead, the complaint charges, only about a penny of every dollar donated went to provide such support, while the overwhelming majority went to pay for-profit fundraisers and Anderson.
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak regarding the Fall 2024 Regulatory Plan and Regulatory Agenda
Statement of Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya Joined by Chair Lina M. Khan and Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter In the Matter of Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits, LLC
Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, LLC., FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission sued the largest U.S. distributor of wine and spirits—Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits, LLC (Southern)—alleging the company violated the Robinson-Patman Act, harming small, independent businesses by depriving them of access to discounts and rebates, and impeding their ability to compete against large national and regional chains. This loss of competition ultimately harms consumers on choice and price.