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.
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.
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.
LCA-Vision Inc. d/b/a LasikPlus
In January 2023, the FTC issued an order requiring Ohio-based LCA-Vision, doing business as LasikPlus and Joffe MediCenter, to pay $1.25 million for using deceptive bait-and-switch advertising to trick consumers into believing they could have their vision corrected for less than $300. The order also bans the defendants from making the misrepresentations detailed in the complaint. The Commission approved the final consent order in March 2023. In October 2024, the FTC announced it was returning $1.1 million to defrauded consumers.
Apex Capital Group, LLC
In October 2022, a Latvian payment processor and its former CEO agreed to settle the FTC’s complaint against them. The complaint alleged that they engaged in unlawful conduct that enabled a deceptive “free trial” offer scheme by U.S.-based defendants. In September 2024, the FTC returned more than $2.8 million to consumer deceived by the scheme.