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.
Educare Centre Services, Inc.
Globex Telecom, Inc. and an affiliated company will pay a total of $1.9 million to settle Federal Trade Commission and State of Ohio charges that they facilitated a scheme that peddled bogus credit card interest rate relief, illegally charging consumers millions of dollars. The settlement marks the end of the FTC’s first consumer protection case against a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service provider.
The FTC and Ohio alleged that Globex provided a company called Educare Centre Services with the means to make calls to U.S. consumers, including illegal robocalls, to market Educare’s phony credit card interest rate reduction services.
The FTC and Ohio charged that both Globex and Educare were controlled by Mohammed Souheil, Globex’s former CEO and president, who was named in the lawsuit along with a number of other corporations and individuals.
Devumi, LLC
On October 21, 2019, the FTC announced it had halted the deceptive online marketing tactics of two companies and their principals, the first of which allegedly sold fake indicators of social media influence, and the second of which allegedly used fake product reviews posted by its employees on a well-known retail website. In the first case, Devumi, LLC and its owner and CEO, German Calas, Jr., agreed to settle the FTC’s first-ever complaint challenging the sale of fake indicators of social media influence. In the second case, cosmetics firm Sunday Riley Modern Skincare, LLC and its CEO agreed to settle an FTC complaint charging them with misleading consumers by posting fake reviews of the company’s products on a major retailer’s website, at the CEO’s direction, and by failing to disclose that the reviewers were company employees. The court entered the final order on October 22, 2019.