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.
Solar XChange, U.S. v.
Life Management Services, Inc.
According to a 2016 complaint brought jointly with the Florida Attorney General’s Office, the Life Management defendants bombarded consumers with illegal robocalls in attempts to sell them bogus credit card interest rate reduction services. According to the complaint, the defendants guaranteed that they could substantially and permanently lower consumers’ credit card interest rates and save them thousands of dollars in interest payments. Consumers allegedly made up-front payments but rarely, if ever, got the promised services. In December 2018, a federal judge in Florida permanently banned Kevin W. Guice from the telemarketing and debt-relief industries, agreeing with the FTC and State that he founded and operated the scam that took in over $23 million from more than 10,000 consumers, until halted by a June 2016. In July 2023, the FTC returned more than $540,000 to defrauded consumers.
Altria Group/JUUL Labs, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission filed an administrative complaint alleging that Altria Group, Inc. and JUUL Labs, Inc. entered a series of agreements, including Altria’s acquisition of a 35% stake in JUUL, that eliminated competition in violation of federal antitrust laws. According to the complaint, this series of agreements involved Altria ceasing to compete in the U.S. market for closed-system electronic cigarettes in return for a substantial ownership interest in JUUL, by far the dominant player in that market. In an initial decision announced on Feb. 24, 2022, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell dismissed the antitrust charges in the complaint.
Smoke Away, U.S. v.
The Federal Trade Commission took action under the FTC Act and the Opioid Addiction Recovery Fraud Prevention Act (OARFPA), suing Michael J. Connors and companies he controls for deceptively marketing their Smoke Away products as able to eliminate consumers’ nicotine addiction and enable them to quit smoking quickly, easily, and permanently. The case is the FTC’s first smoking cessation product challenge under OARFPA, and its first alleging the deceptive use of testimonials to sell a supposed addition-treatment product.
The proposed stipulated order settling the Commission’s complaint permanently bans Connors—who settled a 2005 FTC complaint regarding Smoke Away—and his companies from marketing or selling any substance use disorder treatment product or service, including any smoking cessation product or service.
Walmart, FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission today sued Walmart for allowing its money transfer services to be used by fraudsters, who fleeced consumers out of hundreds of millions of dollars. In its lawsuit, the FTC alleges that for years, the company turned a blind eye while scammers took advantage of its failure to properly secure the money transfer services offered at Walmart stores. The company did not properly train its employees, failed to warn customers, and used procedures that allowed fraudsters to cash out at its stores, according to the FTC’s complaint. The FTC is asking the court to order Walmart to return money to consumers and to impose civil penalties for Walmart’s violations.
Walmart will pay $10 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it turned a blind eye to scammers who used its in-store money transfer services to take hundreds of millions of dollars from U.S. consumers.
Elite IT Partners, Inc.
The Federal Trade Commission alleged Elite IT Partners, Inc. and its founder, President and CEO James Martinos settled FTC allegations that they tricked consumers into believing their computers were infected with viruses in order to sell them costly computer repair services.
Easy Healthcare Corporation, U.S. v.
The FTC reached a settlement with the developer of the fertility app Premom over allegations it deceived users by sharing their sensitive personal information with third parties, including two China-based firms, disclosed users’ sensitive health data to AppsFlyer and Google, and failed to notify consumers of these unauthorized disclosures in violation of the Health Breach Notification Rule (HBNR).
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.
Arete Financial Group
In November 2019, the Federal Trade Commission obtained a temporary restraining order halting an operation that bilked consumers out of millions of dollars by pretending to be affiliated with the U.S. Department of Education and falsely promising student loan debt relief. In September 2020, the FTC announced several of the operators settled FTC charges and agreed to pay at least $835,000. In January 2022, the FTC announced that the remaining defendants in the case are banned from providing student loan debt relief services in settlements with the FTC. The defendants are required to forfeit all of their frozen funds held by the receiver. In June 2023, the FTC sent more than $3.3 million to consumers harmed by this scam.
Microsoft Corporation, U.S. v.
Microsoft will pay $20 million to settle FTC charges that it violated COPPA by collecting personal information from children who signed up to its Xbox gaming system without notifying their parents or obtaining their parents’ consent, and by illegally retaining children’s personal information.
Trend Deploy
In June 2021, the FTC charged online marketer Trend Deploy with falsely promising consumers that it could quickly deliver facemasks and other personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic, then failing to deliver on customers’ orders or offer cancellations or refunds. The Commission is seeking refunds for consumers, as well as civil penalties. In June 2023, the FTC announced a summary judgment in its favor against the defendants.
In August 2025, the FTC Frank Romero, the operator of Trend Deploy,was required to turn over the remaining funds in his bank and retirement accounts as part of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. Romero failed to comply with a 2023 judgment stemming from an FTC lawsuit charging that he did not deliver personal protective equipment (PPE) as promised to consumers.
Cycra, Inc.
The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against motocross and ATV parts maker Cycra and its officer, Chad James, for falsely claiming that the company’s products were manufactured in the U.S. The FTC’s proposed order would stop Cycra and James from making deceptive claims about products being “Made in USA” and require them to pay a monetary judgment. In June 2023, the Commission announced the finalized order. In May 2024, the FTC sent $180,000 in refunds to consumers in this case.
Passport Automotive Group, Inc., FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission filed a Complaint for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Relief, and Other Relief, for a permanent injunction and other relief, pursuant to Sections 5(a), 13(b), and 19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 53(b), and 57b, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691-1691f. The Complaint charges that Defendants participated in deceptive and unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) and its implementing Regulation B, 12 C.F.R. § 202, in the advertising, sales, and financing of motor vehicles.
The Federal Trade Commission is sending payments totaling more than $3.3 million to customers of Passport Auto, a Washington D.C.-area auto dealer. In October 2022, the FTC charged Passport with adding hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars in illegal junk fees to car prices and for discriminating against Black and Latino consumers by charging them higher fees and financing costs.
BCO Consulting
The Federal Trade Commission has stopped a pair of student loan debt relief schemes that it says bilked students out of approximately $12 million by using deceptive claims about repayment programs and loan forgiveness that did not exist. The agency also says the companies falsely claimed to be or be affiliated with the Department of Education and told students that the illegal payments the companies collected would count towards their loans.
After the FTC filed complaints seeking to end the deceptive practices, a federal court temporarily halted the two schemes and froze their assets.
In early October 2023, SL Finance and BCO Consulting were permanently banned from the debt relief industry and ordered to turn over their assets as part of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.
In July 2025, the FTC is sending a total of $743,230 in payments to consumers harmed by BCO Consulting.
Lions Not Sheep
The Federal Trade Commission sued apparel company Lions Not Sheep Products, LLC, and its owner Sean Whalen for falsely claiming that its imported apparel is Made in USA. According to the FTC’s complaint, the company added phony Made in USA labels to clothing and accessories imported from China and other countries. The FTC’s proposed order requires Lions Not Sheep and Whalen to stop making bogus Made in USA claims, come clean about foreign production, and pay a monetary judgment. On July 28, 2022, the Commission announced the final consent agreement in this matter. In May 2023, the FTC announced it was returning $176,000 to defrauded consumers.