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.
Superior Servicing, LLC., FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission has stopped a scheme that allegedly bilked millions of dollars out of consumers burdened with student loan debt by pretending to be affiliated with the U.S. Department of Education in violation of the FTC’s Impersonation Rule, collecting illegal advance fees, and making other deceptive claims.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada entered a temporary restraining order on November 22, 2024 and a preliminary injunction against corporate defendant Superior Servicing on December 6, 2024.
The Federal Trade Commission filed an amended complaint adding corporate defendants Sunrise Solutions USA LLC, Alumni Advantage LLC, Student Processing Center Group LLC, SPCTWO LLC, Accredit LLC and individual defendants Eric Caldwell and David Hernandez.
In September 2025, the FTC announced that Caldwell and Hernandez will be permanently banned from the debt relief industry and will be required to turn over their assets to resolve FTC charges that they helped operate an illegal student loan debt-relief operation. Additionally, Caldwell will be banned from the telemarketing industry, and Hernandez will be prohibited from violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule.
Litigation continues against Merdjanian and the corporate defendants.
TruHeight (Vanilla Chip LLC), In the Matter of
Nevada-based Vanilla Chip LLC, which does business as TruHeight, and its two principals, Eden Stelmach and Justin Rapoport, have agreed to settle the Federal Trade Commission’s charges that they deceptively advertised the effectiveness of a range of supplements touted as supporting height growth in children and teenagers, and relied on reviews that were written by their own employees, or by consumers who were offered a free product or discount in return for writing a 5-star review.
Cleo AI, Inc., FTC v.
Online cash advance company Cleo AI has agreed to pay $17 million to settle the Federal Trade Commission’s allegations that the company deceived consumers about how much money they could get and how fast that money could be available. The complaint, filed in federal district court along with the proposed settlement order, also alleges that Cleo made it difficult for consumers to cancel Cleo’s subscription service.
Chair Khan Letter to Sen. Van Hollen Regarding Antitrust Litigation Costs
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.
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.
American Future Systems, Inc.
In May 2020, the FTC sued the operators of a Pennsylvania-based telemarketing scheme, alleging that they charged organizations such as businesses, schools, fire and police departments, and non-profits for books and newsletter subscriptions they never ordered. The agency’s complaint also names the defendants behind a New York-based debt collection operation, alleging that they illegally threatened the organizations if they failed to pay for the unordered merchandise.
In April 2023, International Credit Recovery, Inc. (ICR), officer Richard Diorio, Jr., and manager Cynthia Powell, have agreed to a permanent ban from the debt collection industry after being charged with engaging in bogus debt collection efforts against businesses and non-profits.
In March 2024, the district court ruled against the FTC on its claims. In June 2024, the district court denied the FTC's post-trial motion to alter or amend judgment.
Novant Health, Inc. and Community Health Systems, Inc., In the Matter of
Statement Of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter joined By Chair Lina M. Khan And Commissioner Alvaro M. Beodya Regarding FTC Staff Report: “Market Factors Relevant to Infant Formula Supply Disruptions”
RCG Advances, LLC
The FTC filed a complaint against RCG Advances, LLC—formerly known as Richmond Capital Group, LLC, and also doing business as Viceroy Capital Funding and Ram Capital Funding—and a related entity and individuals. The complaint alleges that, since at least 2015, the defendants have deceived small businesses and other organizations by misrepresenting the terms of merchant cash advances they provided, and then used unfair collection practices, including threatening physical violence, to compel consumers to pay. The FTC also alleges that defendants have made unauthorized withdrawals from consumers’ accounts.
RCG Advances, LLC and Robert Giardina are permanently banned from the merchant cash advance industry for deceiving and threatening small businesses and their owners. In addition, the court ordered RCG Advances and Giardina to make an upfront payment of $1.5 million and subsequent payment of more than $1.2 million to refund consumers.
Jonathan Braun, who controlled small-business funding company RCG Advances, will face a permanent ban from the merchant cash advance and debt collection industries. A federal court issued summary judgment in favor of the FTC in the case along with a permanent injunction against Braun.
As a result of a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit, a federal court has entered a judgment requiring merchant cash advance operator Jonathan Braun to pay $20.3 million in monetary relief and civil penalties.
FloatMe
The Federal Trade Commission is charging online cash advance provider FloatMe and its co-founders with using empty promises of quick and free cash advances to entice consumers to join its service, only to fail to deliver the promised advance amounts, make it difficult to cancel, and discriminate against consumers who receive public assistance. FloatMe is also being charged with making baseless claims that cash advance limits would be increased by an algorithm or another automated system.
Under the terms of a settlement order, FloatMe, as well as its co-founders Joshua Sanchez and Ryan Cleary, are required to provide $3 million to be used to refund customers, stop the company’s deceptive marketing, make it easier for consumers to cancel their subscriptions, and institute a fair lending program.
The Federal Trade Commission is sending more than $2.6 million in refunds to consumers harmed by online cash advance provider FloatMe. The company deceived consumers with false promises of “free money” and discriminated against some consumers who applied for cash advances.
Consumer Defense, LLC, et al.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission in a case against the operators of a scheme that deceived financially distressed homeowners by falsely promising to make their mortgages more affordable. The defendants also charged consumers illegal advance fees and unlawfully told consumers not to pay their mortgages to or communicate with their lenders.
In January 2024, The FTC sent more than $1.2 million in refunds to consumers who lost money to Consumer Defense.
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.