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.
Concurring Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson in Matter of FTC v. Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc.
Concurring and Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak In re Evolv Technologies, Inc.
Chaucer/Bates Accessories
The Federal Trade Commission has taken action against a group of Massachusetts- and New Hampshire-based clothing accessories companies, along with their owner, Thomas Bates, for falsely claiming that certain company products were manufactured in the U.S. The FTC’s order stops the companies and Bates from making deceptive claims about products being “Made in USA” and requires them to pay a monetary judgment.
In November, 2024, the FTC sent more than $140,000 to consumers who were deceived by false Made in USA claims from New England-based clothing companies Chaucer Accessories and Bates Accessories, along with Bates Retail Group.
Harris Jewelry
The Federal Trade Commission and a group of 18 states sued national jewelry retailer Harris Jewelry to stop the company from cheating military families with illegal financing and sales practices. According to the complaint, the jewelry company deceptively claimed that financing jewelry purchases through Harris would raise servicemembers’ credit scores, misrepresented that its protection plans were not optional or were required, and added the plans to purchases without consumers’ consent. The complaint also includes a charge that the jewelry company violated the Military Lending Act, the FTC’s first action under this Act.
A federal court has ordered Harris Jewelry to reopen its claims process and renotify consumers, most of whom are active duty servicemembers, to submit their claims for refunds. The court found Harris Jewelry violated its prior settlement with the Federal Trade Commission and a multistate group led by the New York Attorney General’s Office by prematurely shutting down the claims portal.
The new claims process is open for 33 days, starting November 18, 2024 and ending Saturday, December 21, 2024.
Bridge It, Inc., FTC v. (Brigit)
The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against personal finance app provider Brigit, alleging that its promises of “instant” cash advances of up to $250 for people living paycheck-to-paycheck were deceptive and that the company locked consumers into a $9.99 monthly membership they couldn’t cancel.
Brigit, also known as Bridge It, Inc., has agreed to settle the FTC’s charges, resulting in a proposed court order that would require the company to pay $18 million in consumer refunds, stop its deceptive marketing promises, and end tactics that prevented customers from cancelling.
In November 2024, the Federal Trade Commission sent more than $17 million in refunds to consumers harmed by online cash advance provider Brigit, which the agency says deceived consumers with false promises of “instant” cash advances and locked consumers into a monthly membership they couldn’t cancel.
Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon eCommerce)
The Federal Trade Commission, 18 state attorneys general, and Puerto Rico sued Amazon alleging that the online retail and technology company is a monopolist that uses a set of interlocking anticompetitive and unfair strategies to illegally maintain its monopoly power. The FTC and its state partners say Amazon’s actions allow it to stop rivals and sellers from lowering prices, degrade quality for shoppers, overcharge sellers, stifle innovation, and prevent rivals from fairly competing against Amazon.
Rhinelander Auto
The Federal Trade Commission and State of Wisconsin are taking action against Wisconsin auto dealer group Rhinelander Auto Center, its current and former owners, and general manager Daniel Towne for deceiving consumers by tacking hundreds or even thousands of dollars in illegal junk fees onto car prices and for discriminating against American Indian customers by charging them higher financing costs and fees.
The defendants have agreed to proposed court orders that will require Rhinelander’s current owners and Towne to stop their unlawful practices and provide $1.1 million to be used for refunds to consumers.
In October 2024, the Federal Trade Commission sent more than $1 million in refunds to consumers who were allegedly harmed by Rhinelander Auto Center’s junk fees and discriminatory practices.
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak In the Matter of Lyft, Inc.
Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part In the Matter of Lyft, Inc.
Lyft, Inc., U.S. v.
The FTC is taking action against rideshare operator Lyft for making deceptive earnings claims about how much money drivers could expect to make per hour and how much they could earn in special incentives.
Lyft has agreed to a proposed settlement that would require its claims about drivers’ pay to be based on typical earnings. In addition, Lyft has agreed to back up with evidence any claims it makes about drivers’ pay, clearly notify drivers about the terms of its “earnings guarantee” offers, and pay a $2.1 million civil penalty.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed the lawsuit and proposed settlement upon notification and referral from the FTC.
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Joined by Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya In the Matter of Lyft, Inc.
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Joined by Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya Concurring in the Denial of the Motion In the Matter of H&R Block, Inc., et al.
American Vehicle Protection Corporation
In February 2022, the FTC took action in federal court against a Florida-based group of defendants it alleges called hundreds of thousands of consumers nationwide to pitch them expensive “extended automobile warranties” using deceptive telemarketing tactics. According to the FTC complaint, American Vehicle Protection Corp. and related defendants bilked consumers out of more than $6 million over the last four years. Under the terms of proposed court orders, three companies and their owners that were charged by the FTC with running the operation that scammed consumers out of millions of dollars would be permanently banned from participating in the extended automobile warranty market, as well as from any further involvement in outbound telemarketing. An additional court order announced in July 2023 bans an additional corporate defendant and its owner.
The Federal Trade Commission is sending more than $449,000 in refunds to consumers who were harmed by American Vehicle Protection Corp., which engaged in a telemarketing scam that involved calling hundreds of thousands of consumers nationwide to pitch expensive “extended automobile warranties” using deceptive telemarketing tactics.