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.
Dave, Inc., FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission has referred its federal court case against online cash advance firm Dave Inc. to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) which has filed an amended complaint in the case that names Dave CEO Jason Wilk as a defendant and seeks civil penalties.
The FTC first brought its case against Dave in November 2024, charging that the company uses misleading marketing to deceive consumers about the amount of its cash advances, charges consumers undisclosed fees, and charges so-called “tips” to consumers without their consent.
Gravity Defyer, FTC v.
In June 2022, the FTC took action against California-based Gravity Defyer Medical Technology Corporation and its owner Alexander Elnekaveh, filing a complaint in federal district court to permanently stop their allegedly deceptive pain-relief claims for Gravity Defyer footwear. In its complaint the FTC alleged that Elnekaveh violated a 2001 order barring him from such allegedly deceptive advertising by making scientifically unsupported claims and using misleading consumer testimonials to sell Gravity Defyer products. In February 2025, the FTC announced a final order setting the case, in which the defendants were barred from the allegedly deceptive advertising and required to pay a civil penalty of $175,000.
Jason Cardiff (Redwood Scientific Technologies, Inc.)
The FTC’s October 2018 complaint against Redwood Scientific charged the defendants with a scheme that used illegal robocalls to deceptively market dissolvable oral film strips as effective smoking cessation, weight-loss, and sexual-performance aids. Announced in June 2019 as part of a crackdown on illegal robocalls against operations around the country responsible for more than one billion calls, an initial settlement resolved the FTC’s charges against one defendant in the Redwood Scientific case, Danielle Cadiz. The order permanently banned Cadiz from all robocall activities, including ringless voicemails, and imposes a judgment of $18.2 million against Cadiz. In March 2022, the FTC announced the final court orders against all remaining defendants.
Turbo Solutions and Alexander Miller, U.S. v.
The FTC obtained an order halting a credit repair scheme that allegedly bilked consumers out of millions of dollars by falsely claiming they will remove negative information from credit reports, while also filing fake identity theft reports to explain negative items on customers’ credit reports.
Aleksandr Kogan and Alexander Nix, In the Matter of
Former Cambridge Analytica, LLC CEO Alexander Nix and Aleksandr Kogan, an app developer who worked with the company, settled Federal Trade Commission allegations that they used deceptive tactics to collect personal information from tens of millions of Facebook users for voter profiling and targeting.
Derek Jason Bartoli
Announced in June 2019 as part of a crackdown on illegal robocalls against operations around the country responsible for more than one billion calls, the FTC’s complaint against Derek Jason Bartoli alleges the Florida-based defendant has been an active participant in the illegal telemarketing industry for several years, serving as the “dialer,” “information technology (IT) guy,” and at times the seller for various telemarketing companies, including companies that the FTC and other law enforcement agencies have sued. He provided services in his own name and in the names of Phoenix Innovative Solutions LLC, Marketing Consultation Solutions LLC, and KimRain Marketing LLC.
Cruz, Jason Q., also d/b/a Appidemic, Inc.
Coleadium, Inc., also d/b/a Ads4Dough, and Jason Akatiff
Alexander Heckman, d/b/a Omega Supply, and Erick Del Rio, In the Matter of
Piedmont Health Alliance, Inc., et al., In the Matter of
With an administrative complaint issued on December 22, 2003 the Commission charged Piedmont Health Alliance, Inc. with collectively setting prices it demanded for physician services with third party payers. According to the complaint, the physician-hospital organization entered into signed agreements on behalf of its member physicians to participate in all contracts negotiated and to accept the negotiated physician fees. The complaint further alleges that these practices eliminated price competition among physicians in the North Carolina counties of Alexander, Burke, Caldwell and Catawba. The complaint also names ten individual physicians who participated in the alleged price fixing services. On August 10, 2004, the organization and physicians agreed to settle charges. Also refer to settlement entered with Tenet Healthcare Corporation (Frye Regional Medical Center, Inc.).