Skip to main content

Displaying 1 - 20 of 5188

Growth Cave, LLC

As a result of a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit, a federal court has temporarily halted the operations of a wide-ranging business opportunity and credit repair scam that has operated under the name “Growth Cave” since at least 2020.

The FTC’s complaint against the operation and its owners and officers, Lucas Lee-Tyson, Osmany Batte (also known as “Ozzie Blessed”), and Jordan Marksberry, alleges that the Growth Cave operation has taken approximately $50 million from consumers using false promises of huge income.

In May 2025, the FTC filed an amended complaint in this case, adding two defendants based on information the FTC learned after the original filing.

The amended complaint names LLT Research as a new defendant in the case and adds as a relief defendant Friendly Solar, Inc.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
Case Status
Pending

Panda Benefit Services, LLC., FTC v.

In June 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it took action to stop Prosperity Benefit Services, a student loan debt relief scheme that the agency says bilked more than $20.3 million from consumers seeking debt relief by pretending to be affiliated with the Department of Education. The FTC also charged that the company and its operators falsely claimed that they would take over consumers’ student loans to get them loan forgiveness that did not exist. In May 2025, the FTC announced that the operation and its owners are permanently banned from the debt relief industry and required to turn over all assets to resolve allegations that they misled consumers.

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
2423041
Case Status
Pending

Uber, FTC v.

The Federal Trade Commission sued Uber Technologies, Inc. and Uber USA LLC (collectively, “Uber”) for alleged violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence
Act (“ROSCA”). Among other things, the complaint alleges that Uber charges consumers for its subscription service, Uber One, through a negative option feature but has failed to provide a simple mechanism to stop recurring charges. The complaint also alleges Uber has charged consumers without their consent in violation of the FTC Act and ROSCA. Further, the complaint alleges Uber falsely claims that consumers can cancel Uber One at “any time” with no additional fees.
 

The FTC filed a lawsuit today against Uber, alleging the rideshare and delivery company charged consumers for its Uber One subscription service without their consent, failed to deliver promised savings, and made it difficult for users to cancel the service despite its “cancel anytime” promises.

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
2423092
Docket Number
3:25-cv-03477
Case Status
Pending

FTC Votes on Negative Option Rule Deadline

Date
Today the Federal Trade Commission voted to defer the compliance deadline for the amended Negative Option Rule by 60 days. The Commission issued a statement on the new deadline. The Commission vote to...

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.

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
Case Status
Pending

Asbury Automotive Group, Inc., et al., In the Matter of

The Federal Trade Commission is acting against a large automotive dealer group, Asbury Automotive, for systematically charging consumers for costly add-on items they did not agree to or were falsely told were required as part of their purchase. The FTC also alleges that Asbury discriminates against Black and Latino consumers, targeting them with unwanted and higher-priced add-ons.

In an administrative complaint, the FTC alleges that three Texas dealerships owned by Asbury that operate as David McDavid Ford Ft. Worth, David McDavid Honda Frisco, and David McDavid Honda Irving, along with Ali Benli, who acted as general manager of those dealerships, engaged in a variety of practices to sneak hidden fees for unwanted add-ons past consumers. These tactics included a practice called “payment packing,” where the dealerships convinced consumers to agree to monthly payments that were larger than needed to pay for the agreed-upon price of the car, and then “packed” add-on items to the sales contract to make up that difference.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
222 3135
Docket Number
9436
Case Status
Pending

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.

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
Case Status
Pending

IM Mastery

The Federal Trade Commission and the State of Nevada are taking action to stop a wide-ranging investment training and business venture scam that has bilked consumers out of more than $1.2 billion. According to the complaint filed by the FTC and the Nevada Attorney General, the scam currently operates as IYOVIA and has also used the brand names IM Mastery Academy, iMarketsLive, and IM Academy (collectively, “IML”).

The complaint alleges the company and its operators use false or baseless earning claims to entice consumers to purchase training on financial topics. They have used similar claims to persuade consumers to buy into IML’s multi-level-marketing business venture, which involves marketing IML’s training services to others. It also alleges that that IML deliberately focused on marketing to young people, including through posts to college social media pages.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
Case Status
Pending