Tag: deceptive/misleading conduct

The FTC, joined by Utah and California, by and through Los Angeles County Counsel, today sued Hims & Hers alleging that the telehealth provider shared consumers’ sensitive health information about medical conditions with third-party advertising platforms despite claiming its services maintain consumers’ privacy and deceives users about its billing and cancellation practices.

The FTC will require Cox Media Group, MindSift, and 1010 Digital Works to pay a total of $930,000 to settle allegations they deceived customers by falsely claiming to offer an AI-powered service that could target localized ads based on conversations captured from consumers’ smart devices and that consumers had opted into such targeting

The Federal Trade Commission and the State of Connecticut are taking action against auto dealer Manchester City Nissan (MCN), along with its owner and a number of key employees, for systematically deceiving consumers about the price of certified used cars, add-ons, and government fees.

The complaint alleges that the dealership, in addition to deceiving consumers, regularly charges them junk fees for certification, add-on products, and government charges without the consumers’ consent, sometimes costing them thousands of dollars in unwanted and unauthorized charges.

Doxo will pay $2.1 million to settle FTC allegations that the company and two of its co-founders used misleading search ads to impersonate consumers’ billers and misled consumers about millions of dollars in fees they tacked on to consumers’ bills.

At the request of the FTC, a federal court has temporarily halted a bogus credit repair scheme run by a sprawling network of 17 related companies and their principals. 

Ticket broker Elite Events and its operators will pay $300,000 in civil penalties to resolve FTC allegations that the firm purchased millions of dollars’ worth of tickets to high-demand events by illegally circumventing measures designed to limit the number of tickets that can be purchased to a single event.

In December 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it took action to stop 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 FTC 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.

In February 2026, a federal judge entered an order against Dennise Merdjanian, an operator of the scheme, that permanently banned her from the debt relief industry and telemarketing following a settlement with the FTC.

In June 2026, a federal judge entered a default order against corporate defendants Superior Servicing LLC, Sunrise Solutions USA LLC, Alumni Advantage LLC, Student Processing Center Group LLC, SPCTWO LLC and Accredit LLC. resolving litigation against the remaining defendants in the case.

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.