Skip to main content

Displaying 1 - 20 of 1395

NGL

The FTC has taken action against NGL Labs, LLC and two of its co-founders, Raj Vir and Joao Figueiredo, for a host of law violations related to their anonymous messaging app, including unfairly marketing the service to children and teens.

In July 2024, the FTC took action against NGL Labs, LLC and two of its co-founders, Raj Vir and Joao Figueiredo, for a host of law violations related to their anonymous messaging app, including unfairly marketing the service to children and teens. 

In January 2026, the Commission announced the claims process through which potentially defrauded consumers could see refunds from the FTC.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
Case Status
Pending

Rytr LLC, In the Matter of

According to the FTC’s complaint, Rytr’s service generated detailed reviews that contained specific, often material details that had no relation to the user’s input, and these reviews almost certainly would be false for the users who copied them and published them online. In many cases, subscribers’ AI-generated reviews featured information that would deceive potential consumers who were using the reviews to make purchasing decisions. The complaint further alleges that at least some of Rytr’s subscribers used the service to produce hundreds, and in some cases tens of thousands, of reviews potentially containing false information.

The proposed order settling the Commission’s complaint is designed to prevent Rytr from engaging in similar illegal conduct in the future. It would bar the company from advertising, promoting, marketing, or selling any service dedicated to – or promoted as – generating consumer reviews or testimonials. 

On December 22, 2025, the FTC issued an order to reopen and set aside a 2024 final consent order involving Rytr LLC.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
232 3052
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

Support King, LLC (SpyFone.com), In the Matter of

The FTC approved a proposed order banning SpyFone and its CEO Scott Zuckerman from the surveillance business over allegations that the stalkerware app company secretly harvested and shared data on people’s physical movements, phone use, and online activities through a hidden device hack.

The FTC denied a petition to vacate or modify the FTC’s 2021 order.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
192 3003
Docket Number
C-4756
Case Status
Pending

Citizens Disability

The Citizens Disability, LLC and its subsidiary will pay a $1 million penalty to resolve FTC allegations that they made tens of millions of illegal calls to consumers and that they misrepresented that they were calling consumers in response to inquiries about their eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits. 

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
Case Status
Under Order

Ticketmaster

The FTC and seven states sued Ticketmaster and Live Nation alleging they deceived artists and consumers by engaging in bait-and-switch pricing through advertising lower prices for tickets than what consumers must pay to purchase tickets; deceptively claimed to impose strict limits on the number of tickets that consumers could purchase for an event, even though ticket brokers routinely and substantially exceeded those limits; and sold millions of tickets, often at much higher cost to consumers, on its resale platform that those brokers obtained in excess of artists’ ticket limits.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
Case Status
Pending