The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
20251144: ASP VIII Alternative Investments, L.P.; MidOcean Partners V, L.P.
20251151: Toyota Tsusho Corporation; Radius Recycling, Inc.
Statement on the Recusal of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak in United States et al. v. Google LLC
Statement of the Commission Regarding the Negative Option Rule
United States of America, et al. v Google, LLC
Empire Holdings Group LLC, et al. FTC v.
The FTC has charged a business opportunity scheme with falsely claiming to help consumers build an “AI-powered Ecommerce Empire” by participating in its training programs that can cost almost $2,000 or by buying a “done for you” online storefront for tens of thousands of dollars. The scheme, known as Ecommerce Empire Builders (EEB), claims consumers can potentially make millions of dollars, but the FTC’s complaint alleges that those profits fail to materialize.
As a result of the FTC’s complaint, a federal court issued an order temporarily halting the scheme and putting it under the control of a receiver. The FTC’s case against the scheme is ongoing and will be decided by a federal court.
In May 2025, EEB and its owner, Peter Prusinowski (also known as Peter Pru), agreed to a court order that bans them from selling business opportunities and require them to turn over assets to the FTC to be used for refunds to consumers.
20251128: Kingswood Capital Opportunities Fund III, L.P.; Franchise Group, Inc.
20251093: ACIP Parallel Fund A, L.P.; Global Renewable Partners II (US2) Investco, LLC
20251106: Greenbriar Equity Fund VI, L.P.; West Star Aviation Investments, LLC
20251091: Adage Capital Partners, L.P.; Soleno Therapeutics, Inc.
20251108: Denali Investment Holdings, L.P.; Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc.
20251085: The Veritas Capital Vantage Fund, L.P.; Cobra Holdco, LLC
FTC and DOJ Joint Letter to EPA re: Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers
Facebook, Inc., In the Matter of
The FTC alleged that Facebook violated its privacy promises to consumers and subsequently violated a 2012 Commission order.
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.