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.
Syngenta and Corteva, FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission and state partners have filed a complaint in federal court alleging that pesticide manufacturers Syngenta Crop Protection and Corteva, Inc. have used so-called “loyalty” programs to block and restrict generic competition from pesticide markets, leaving farmers to pay elevated prices for crop protection. The complaint seeks to bar Syngenta and Corteva from continuing these programs and from entering into any similar arrangements in the future, and to restore competition to affected markets.
CafePress, In the Matter of
The FTC alleged that CafePress failed to implement reasonable security measures to protect sensitive information stored on its network, including plain text Social Security numbers, inadequately encrypted passwords, and answers to password reset questions. The Commission’s proposed order requires the company to bolster its data security and requires its former owner to pay a half million dollars to compensate small businesses.
The FTC is sending payments totaling more than $370,000 to consumers who were harmed by the data security failures of online merchandise platform CafePress.
XCast Labs, Inc., U.S. v.
The FTC sued to stop a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) provider, XCast Labs, Inc., that continued to funnel hundreds of millions of illegal robocalls through its network, even after receiving multiple warnings.
On January 2, 2024, XCast Labs, Inc., agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it funneled hundreds of millions of illegal robocalls through its network, even after receiving multiple warnings about the unlawful conduct.
Under the proposed court order, XCast Labs will be required to implement a screening process and end its relationships with firms that are not complying with telemarketing-related laws. The Department of Justice litigated the case and filed the proposed order on the FTC’s behalf.
Sanofi/Maze Therapeutics, Inc., In the Matter of
On December 13, 2023, the FTC moved to dismiss its case challenging the transaction following Sanofi’s decision to terminate its transaction with Maze Therapeutics Inc.
Amgen, Inc. and Horizon Therapeutics plc, In the Matter of
In August 2023, the FTC reached a proposed consent order with Amgen Inc. to address the potential competitive harm that would result from Amgen’s $27.8 billion acquisition of Horizon Therapeutics plc. As part of a nationwide settlement of their challenge to the acquisition, the FTC and attorneys general from six states – California, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin – also dismissed the related federal court preliminary injunction action, allowing the transaction to proceed, with the conditions imposed by the order. In December 2023, the FTC finalized the consent order with Amgen Inc. and appointed a monitor.
Chargebacks 911
The Federal Trade Commission and the State of Florida have filed suit against Chargebacks911 for unfairly thwarting consumers who were trying to dispute credit card charges through the chargeback process.
In a complaint filed in federal court, the FTC and Florida charged that, since at least 2016, the “chargeback mitigation” company and its owners, Gary Cardone and Monica Eaton Cardone, have used multiple unfair techniques to prevent consumers from successfully winning chargeback disputes.
Chargebacks911 and its owners have agreed to a settlement that will prohibit them from working with certain high-risk clients and using deceptive tactics to stop consumers trying to dispute credit card charges through the chargeback process.
HomeAdvisor, In the Matter of
In January 2023, the FTC issued an order requiring Denver-based HomeAdvisor, Inc. – a company affiliated with Angi, formerly known as “Angie’s List” – to pay up to $7.2 million for using a wide range of deceptive and misleading tactics in selling home improvement project leads to service providers, including small businesses operating in the “gig” economy. The Commission announced approval of the final consent order in April 2023.
MDK Media, Inc.
NTS IT Care, Inc. and Jagmeet Singh Virk, FTC v.
The FTC alleged that NTS IT Care and its CEO, Jagmeet Singh Virk, tricked consumers into buying expensive and unnecessary tech support services and often claimed to be affiliated with Microsoft, Apple, and other tech companies.
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc./Black Knight, Inc., In the Matter of
In August 2023, the FTC approved a proposed consent order to resolve antitrust concerns surrounding Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.’s (ICE) proposed $13.1 billion acquisition of Black Knight, Inc. The proposed settlement ensures Black Knight’s divestiture of Empower and Optimal Blue, two businesses that provide critical services in the mortgage origination process. The FTC also secured other concessions to promote the success of the divested businesses. On November 3, 2023, the FTC approved the final consent order.
K W Technology Inc., et al. (1 Invisible Mask), FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission sued to stop four related defendants from deceptively marketing their 1 Virus Buster Invisible Mask (Invisible Mask) that purportedly creates a three-foot barrier of protection against 99.9 percent of all viruses and bacteria, including COVID-19 – without any scientific proof that the product actually works.
TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. and Trans Union, LLC., FTC and CFPB v.
Retail Services & Systems, Inc. d/b/a Total Wine & More, FTC v.
Axon Enterprise and Safariland, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission issued an administrative complaint challenging Axon Enterprise, Inc.’s consummated acquisition of its body-worn camera systems competitor VieVu, LLC. Before the acquisition, the two companies competed to provide body-worn camera systems to large, metropolitan police departments across the United States. According to the complaint, Axon’s May 2018 acquisition reduced competition in an already concentrated market. Before their merger, Axon and VieVu competed to sell body-worn camera systems that were particularly well suited for large metropolitan police departments. The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint was 5-0. On April 17, 2020, the Commission announced a proposed settlement with Safariland, which is one of the respondents and the parent company of VieVu. The final settlement was issued on June 11, 2020. The administrative trial was scheduled to begin on Oct. 13, 2020, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered a stay until further notice.
The University of Phoenix, Inc.
In December 2019, the FTC announced The University of Phoenix and its parent company agreed to pay a record $191 million to resolve allegations that they used deceptive advertisements falsely touting their relationships and job opportunities with companies such as AT&T, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Twitter, and The American Red Cross. The settlement order requires UOP to pay $50 million in cash, as well as cancel $141 million in debts owed to the school by students harmed by the deceptive ads.
In March 2021, the FTC sent payments totaling nearly $50 million to more than 147,000 UOP students who may have been lured by allegedly deceptive advertisements.
In late September 2023, the U.S. Department of Education announced that it will forgive nearly $37 million in federal loans for more than 1,200 students affected by the University of Phoenix’s deceptive practices, based in part on the FTC’s 2019 case.
Hey Dude Inc., FTC v.
In September 2023, the FTC announced online shoe retailer Hey Dude, Inc. (Hey Dude) will pay $1.95 million to settle charges that the company misled consumers by suppressing negative reviews, including more than 80 percent of reviews that failed to provide four or more stars out of a possible five. The FTC also contends the company violated the Commission’s Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule in several ways between 2020 and 2022. In August 2024, the FTC announced it was returning $1.9 million to defrauded consumers.