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.
Rejuvica, LLC., FTC v.
In July 2023, the Commission took action under the FTC Act and the OARFPA against the makers of Sobrenix, which was deceptively marketed to reduce and even eliminate alcohol cravings and consumption. As a result of the FTC’s suit, the defendants agreed to a proposed court order permanently banning them from making any unsubstantiated claims about health care products or services, as well as requiring them to pay $650,000 to provide refunds to consumers. In November 2024, the FTC announced it was sending $536,000 in refunds to defrauded consumers who bought the product.
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.
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.
Instant Brands LLC, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission has taken action against Instant Brands, manufacturer of Pyrex-brand kitchen and home products, for falsely claiming that all its popular glass measuring cups were made in the United States during a time some measuring cups were imported from China. The FTC’s proposed order against Instant Brands would stop the company from making deceptive claims about products being “Made in USA” and require them to pay a monetary judgment.
The Federal Trade Commission is sending more than $88,000 in refunds to consumers who bought Chinese-made measuring cups marketed as “Made in USA” by Instant Brands, the maker of Pyrex-brand kitchen and home products.