[{"titre":"Root, root root for the regions","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/09/root-root-root-regions","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:07 +0200","description":"Root, root root for the regions lfair September 24, 2018 | 2:03PM Root, root root for the regions By Andrew Smith, Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection T his year eight major league baseball teams are celebrating milestone anniversaries – and so are the FTC’s regional offices. In 1918, the Commission opened the first three of its regional offices. Today, eight regional offices continue to knock it out the park on behalf of America’s consumers. So it’s only fitting that on this momentous day we acknowledge the regional offices’ century of pennant-winning performances. According to the Commission’s 1918 Annual Report, “In order to expedite the greatly increased work of the Commission . . . small branch offices were established in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco.” Over time, the FTC has added other locations for a current total of eight offices in seven regions. Regional staff work with the Bureau of Consumer Protection and the Bureau of Competition on investigations and litigation. But they are in a unique position to host roundtables and workshops in their communities; to coordinate with local, state, and cross-border law enforcers; and to build partnerships with consumer groups and small business organizations within their region. According to the scouting report, there isn’t a pitch they can’t hit. Here’s a brief look at each region’s box score with a focus on just a few of their many MVP contributions to the FTC’s consumer protection mission. East Central Region . In 1918, the Cleveland Indians finished just out of pennant contention, but the FTC’s Cleveland-based office works hard to bring home the W for consumers and small businesses. For example, ECR has brought a number of cases over the past two decades to protect small businesses in their area and around the country, including cramming, business directory, and unordered merchandise scams. Recently, ECR played a central role in Operation Main Street, the FTC’s recent initiative against scammers targeting small businesses. Midwest Region . Chicago fans may be divided in their loyalty to the Cubs and the White Sox, but consumers who lost money to scammers who used the services of a major money transfer company are united in their appreciation for the FTC-DOJ settlement that returned $586 million back to them. And just recently, MWR hosted the Commission’s workshop on cryptocurrency scams and took a lead role in Operation Tech Trap, a coordinated state, federal, and international effort to shut down tech support fraudsters. Northeast Region . Given New York’s connection to names like Huggins, Houk, Stengel, Berra, and Torre, it’s no wonder the FTC’s Northeast Region has particular expertise in coaching. But in NER’s case, it’s about companies that make deceptive “coaching” and money-making representations. The New York-based office also has been one of the FTC’s power hitters in addressing misleading practices in the affiliate marketing industry. And from their Big Apple location, NER has been a leader in educating consumers, particularly older Americans and small businesses. Northwest Region . Like their hometown Seattle Mariners, the FTC’s Northwest Region has a proven record of navigating the complexities on the field of play. NWR coordinated Operation Donate with Honor, a nationwide crackdown on fraudulent charities alleged to have conned consumers by falsely promising their contributions will help veterans and servicemembers. In addition, our team in Seattle regularly coordinates with Canadian counterparts to combat cross-border fraud. And they’ve been ahead of the curve on tech issues, bringing one of the FTC’s first internet cases in the 90s and more recently, an early online influencer action. Southeast Region . The Atlanta Braves boast a national fan base – and due to their expertise in fighting fraud, the FTC’s Southeast Region can be proud of its coast-to-coast impact,","id":3201877,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"description":"FTC’s Lord & Taylor case: In native advertising, clear disclosure is always in style lfair March 15, 2016 | 8:37AM FTC’s Lord & Taylor case: In native advertising, clear disclosure is always in style By Lesley Fair It’s a fetching frock with spaghetti straps, an engineered paisley print, and an asymmetrical hemline. And it’s at the center of a law enforcement action against department store chain Lord & Taylor for its allegedly deceptive use of native advertising – the first case of its kind since the FTC released its Enforcement Policy Statement in December. The lawsuit also challenges Lord & Taylor’s “product bomb” campaign on Instagram as misleading. Lord & Taylor used an extensive social media push to launch Design Lab, its own apparel line aimed at women between 18 and 35. The strategy was interesting: Focus on just one item – that paisley asymmetrical dress. For the native advertising part of the campaign, Lord & Taylor signed a contract to have Nylon, an online fashion magazine, run an article about the Design Lab collection featuring a photo of the paisley dress. Lord & Taylor reviewed and approved the paid-for Nylon article, but didn’t require a disclosure about their commercial arrangement.  In addition, Lord & Taylor contracted to have Nylon post a photo of the paisley dress on Nylon’s Instagram page. Again, Lord & Taylor reviewed and approved the paid-for post, but didn’t require a disclosure. That was only part of the campaign. Lord & Taylor also recruited a team of fashion influencers, all of whom had two things in common: a sense of style and a massive number of followers on social media platforms. Lord & Taylor gave the dress to 50 influencers and paid them between $1,000 and $4,000 to post photos of themselves in the dress on Instagram on one specified “product bomb” weekend in March 2015 – the same weekend when Nylon posted its Lord & Taylor-approved photo. Style the dress any way you like, Lord & Taylor told the influencers, but in other aspects, the contract was all business. The influencers had to: 1) use the @lordandtaylor Instagram user designation and the campaign hashtag #DesignLab in the photo caption; and 2) tag the photo @lordandtaylor. Lord & Taylor’s reps preapproved each of the influencers’ Instagram posts to make sure they included the required hashtag and Instagram designation. The company also edited some of what the influencers planned to say. But despite the company’s punctilious approach to hashtags, handles, and the like, Lord & Taylor was curiously silent about other key aspects of the campaign. For example, according to the FTC, Lord & Taylor’s contract didn’t require the influencers to disclose that Lord & Taylor had paid them. Furthermore, none of the Instagram posts Lord & Taylor approved included a disclosure that the influencer had received the dress for free, that she had been compensated for the post, or that the post was a part of a Lord & Taylor ad campaign. And as the complaint alleges, Lord & Taylor didn’t add a disclosure to that effect to any of the influencers’ posts it reviewed. The Instagram campaign reached 11.4 million individual users, resulting in 328,000 brand engagements – likes, comments, reposts, etc. – with Lord & Taylor’s Instagram handle.  And the paisley dress sold out. The FTC complaint charges Lord & Taylor with three separate violations:  1) that Lord & Taylor falsely represented that the 50 Instagram images and captions reflected the independent statements of impartial fashion influencers, when they really were part of a Lord & Taylor ad campaign to promote sales of its new line; 2) that Lord & Taylor failed to disclose that the influencers were the company’s paid endorsers – a connection that would have been material to consumers; and 3) that Lord & Taylor falsely represented that the Nylon article and Instagram post reflected Nylon’s independent opinion about the","id":3201871,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","titre":"FTC’s Lord & Taylor case: In native advertising, clear disclosure is always in style","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/03/ftcs-lord-taylor-case-native-advertising-clear-disclosure-always-style","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:06 +0200"},{"pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:06 +0200","titre":"A clothes look at the RN database: Q&A with FTC staff","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/10/clothes-look-rn-database-qa-ftc-staff","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3201873,"description":"A clothes look at the RN database: Q&A with FTC staff lfair October 5, 2017 | 11:18AM A clothes look at the RN database: Q&A with FTC staff By Lesley Fair It’s not much bigger than a postage stamp, but the label on many textile, wool, and fur products provides important information, including fiber content, country of origin, and a company name or Registered Identification Number (RN). The FTC administers the RN system and industry members will want to check out recent upgrades to the RN website . With RNs and labels on our mind, we asked some common RN-related questions to attorney Josh Millard, whom we’d label as one of the FTC’s go-to people on the subject. First things first. What’s an RN? JOSH:   A Registered Identification Number (RN) is a numerical designation – the prefix RN followed by a set of digits – that identifies the company responsible for marketing, distributing or otherwise handling a product covered by the Textile, Wool, and Fur Acts.  Because some labels are small and some company names are long, the law allows U.S.-based businesses to use an RN as a “shorthand” identification. We think the upgrades to the RN website will make it even easier for businesses to use. How do I get an RN for my company? JOSH:   Apply online. FTC staff will review your application and email you typically within 1-3 business days. As soon as your application has been approved, you’ll receive your RN.  How much does it cost to get an RN? JOSH:   There’s no charge. Is it mandatory that companies use an RN on labels? JOSH:   No, you don’t have to use an RN. It’s perfectly acceptable to include your company name instead, but many companies prefer to use an RN because it takes up less space. The RN system has other benefits, too. For example, it lets people identify your business easily through the RN Search screen . Consumers or other industry members can type in the number and readily find your business. Our company doesn’t reside in the United States.  Can we get an RN? JOSH:   Only U.S.-based businesses can get an RN. If your foreign company manufactures or is involved in the advertising, distribution, or sale of a product covered by the Textile, Wool, and Fur Acts, put the company name on the label instead of an RN. Alternatively, you can label the product with the RN or business name of a U.S. company directly involved with importing, distributing, or selling the product when that’s the case. Going through our records we found we have multiple RNs.  Is that a problem? JOSH:   It’s not prohibited, but we no longer issue multiple RNs to a single company and encourage companies to cancel any extra RNs to simplify recordkeeping. Our headquarters has moved since we applied for an RN.  Do we need to update our application? JOSH:   Yes. If there has been a change to your business name, address, or legal status, please update the information in your RN registration.  An RN can be cancelled if a business doesn’t keep its information up to date, so it’s wise to check. The good news is that the upgraded RN website makes that easier to do. What if we choose to use a company name on the label, rather than an RN? JOSH:   You must include the full name your company uses to do business – in other words, the name that appears on documents like purchase orders or invoices. It can’t be a trademark, trade name, brand, or designer name unless that’s also the name under which your company does business. What kind of guidance does the FTC have for industry members? JOSH:  Threading Your Way Through the Labeling Requirements Under the Textile and Wool Acts is a great place to start, and the FTC’s Clothing and Textiles page includes links to brochures, cases, workshops and other compliance resources."},{"pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 08:05:50 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2010/09/full-disclosure","titre":"Full Disclosure","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3201057,"description":"Full Disclosure wfg-adm109 September 7, 2010 | 11:56AM Full Disclosure By Lesley Fair The FTC’s first law enforcement action related to the revised Endorsement Guides offers compliance insights for marketers.  In a proposed settlement with Reverb Communications, Inc. , the FTC alleged that employees of a public relations agency hired by game developers posed as consumers and posted reviews on Apple’s iTunes store without disclosing that the reviews came from people working on behalf of the developers. According to the FTC, in addition to giving their clients’ game apps high ratings, Reverb employees posted comments like \"Amazing new game,\" \"ONE of the BEST,\" \"[Company] hits another home run with [product name],\" \"Really Cool Game\" \"GREAT, family-friendly board game app,\" \"One of the best apps just got better\" and \"[Company] does it again!\" They didn’t disclose that the company was hired to promote the games and that it often got a percentage of the sales. The FTC alleged that these facts would have been relevant to consumers who were evaluating the reviews and deciding whether to buy the apps. The FTC’s proposed settlement, which names both the company and its owner, requires the company to take down the deceptive endorsements, and bans similar misrepresentations in the future.  Looking for more information?  Read The FTC’s Revised Endorsement Guides: What People are Asking"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/07/we-cant-go-no-can-do","titre":"We can’t go for that (no can do)","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 14:06:39 +0200","description":"We can’t go for that (no can do) lfair July 17, 2017 | 11:38AM We can’t go for that (no can do) By Lesley Fair Of course, phantom debt collection – the practice of pressuring people to pay “debts” they don’t owe – harms consumers. But as an FTC complaint demonstrates, when phantom debt collectors strike, they could affect your company, too. According to the FTC , a Florida-based outfit engaged in a scheme to defraud consumers through the collection of debts people didn’t actually owe or the company didn’t have the authority to collect. The complaint charges that the defendants – Hardco Holding Group, S & H Financial Group, Dequan M. Sicard, and Daryl M. Hall (no, not that Daryl Hall) – violated the FTC Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. When contacting consumers, in many instances the defendants allegedly impersonated attorneys and threatened to have people thrown in jail if they didn’t pay up on delinquent payday loans – loans, remember, that many consumers didn’t take out in the first place and defendants didn’t have the right to collect. One tactic involved contacting people with a “case number” and directing them to dial a callback number. On the second call, the defendants allegedly said they were affiliated with named law firms and that the consumer had committed a felony, could go to prison, or faced arrest. According to the complaint , to boost the credibility of their threat of pending or imminent legal action, the defendants claimed to have the consumer’s Social Security number, bank account number, or contact information for family members. Afraid of legal repercussions, many consumers knuckled under to the demand for payment. The FTC says the defendants also told third parties that consumers owed money, a violation of the FDCPA. In addition, the complaint charges that the defendants didn’t disclose their identity to consumers, failed to provide proper validation notices, and used other false, misleading, and abusive tactics. Phantom debt collectors unquestionably injure consumers, but how could conduct like that affect your company? According to the lawsuit, when pressed to identify themselves, the defendants often gave the names or addresses of legitimate small businesses that had nothing to do with the purported debt or the debt collectors. When concerned consumers contacted those companies to complain, their employees got an understandably angry earful. From the FTC’s perspective, unrelated small businesses shouldn’t have their reputations sullied by others’ allegedly illegal tactics. A federal court in Orlando has temporarily halted the operation and frozen its assets. The FTC wants to stop the illegal practices once and for all. What can consumers do if they’re getting calls for debts they don’t owe ? File a complaint with the FTC. How can small businesses help protect their good names? Every now and then, do a selfie search with your company name and a word like “debt.” If you see consumer posts that suggest that a debt collector is illegally using your name – or if your employees are getting complaints about debt collection calls supposedly coming from your company – let the FTC know about it , too. In the meantime, businesses looking for FDCPA compliance resources can visit the FTC’s debt collection page for some – in the words of the other Daryl Hall (and let’s not forget John Oates) – “Adult Education.”","id":3200011,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"id":3199074,"description":"Planning a social media marketing campaign? Read this first. lfair November 13, 2018 | 12:24PM Planning a social media marketing campaign? Read this first. By Lesley Fair It started as one of those “run it up the flagpole” ideas to enlist big-name gymnasts to promote a brand of mosquito repellent just as news stories about the 2016 Brazil Olympics were sounding warnings about the Zika virus. Public relations firm Creaxion Corporation and specialty sports magazine publisher Inside Publications used a variety of digital strategies on behalf of the brand: athlete endorsements, social media posts, “advertorials,” and consumer reviews. But according to the FTC’s complaint , their efforts violated established FTC advertising principles. Which of those strategies are you using? And are you avoiding legal pitfalls by making appropriate disclosures? Creaxion – an Atlanta-based marketing and PR company – was approached by client HealthPro Brands to help launch its mosquito repellent. They agreed Creaxion would produce a “strategic media relations campaign” that would be “tied to the worldwide outbreak of the Zika Virus.” Creaxion then contacted Inside Publications, publisher of magazines like Inside Volleyball , Inside Cheerleading , and Inside Gymnastics , to broker a partnership with HealthPro. You’ll want to read the complaint for details about the “Social and Digital Media Activation and Athlete Engagement” agreement between HealthPro and Inside Publications, but here are some of the things HealthPro paid for: endorsements by leading gymnasts, magazine “articles” featuring the repellent, the product’s placement in “Good Luck” gift baskets from Inside Gymnastics to top U.S. gymnasts, and social media posts touting the product by Inside Publications and athlete endorsers. According to the complaint, Creaxion president Mark Pettit acted as an intermediary between Inside Publications and HealthPro. Ultimately, 2004 Olympic gold medal gymnast Carly Patterson Caldwell agreed to become a paid spokesperson. She received several thousand dollars for social media posts and an Inside Gymnastics advertorial. (She decided not to attend the Brazil Olympics because of her concerns about Zika.) Olympic gold medal gymnast Jake Dalton also signed on and was paid for promoting the repellent to his fans and followers. The two gymnasts posted endorsements of the repellent on social media without disclosing their paid promotional relationship. For example, Ms. Patterson Caldwell said on Facebook, “I was definitely bummed to have to make the decision to not go to Rio for the summer Olympics because of the threat of the Zika virus, but working on starting a family and being safe and protecting myself was way more important to my husband and me! I am so thankful to have found a safe and organic product (FIT Organic) that will ease my worries as mosquito season approaches.” Similarly, Mr. Dalton posted on Twitter, “Getting Rio Ready! Not worried about Zika. Fit Organic has my back and body covered. Love the Fit mosquito repellent.” Inside Publications also posted and reposted statements on social media about the repellent, primarily through its Inside Gymnastics account, including some featuring Patterson Caldwell and Dalton. According to the complaint, Inside Publications didn’t disclose the spokespersons’ paid promotional relationships with HealthPro or that its own posts were paid ads. Nor did it disclose that the “Caring for Carly,” “The latest on Zika” and “Move Over Mosquitos” articles were really paid ads. The FTC also says Creaxion conducted an online consumer review program that reimbursed Creaxion employees and “friends” for buying FIT repellent and reviewing the product online without disclosing their affiliation with the brand. The complaint charges that the gymnasts’ statements about the repellent were falsely represented as the","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:23 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/11/planning-social-media-marketing-campaign-read-first","titre":"Planning a social media marketing campaign? Read this first."},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/04/keep-fcra-foreground-when-subject-background-screening","titre":"Keep FCRA in the foreground when the subject is background screening","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:46 +0200","description":"Keep FCRA in the foreground when the subject is background screening chundycz April 9, 2014 | 12:13AM Keep FCRA in the foreground when the subject is background screening By Lesley Fair When the talk turns to Big Data, part of the conversation is about all the public information available about people's lives – and how companies market it to prospective employers, landlords, etc.  Two cases just announced by the FTC  serve as a cautionary reminder to members of the industry that what they do may be subject to the long-standing consumer protections of the  Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) .  InfoTrack, an Illinois company, and San Diego-based Instant Checkmate will be paying civil penalties to settle FTC lawsuits that they violated the FCRA.  Is it time for an FCRA refresher at your business? Instant Checkmate marketed its reports as a way for prospective employers and landlords to investigate applicants.  For example, the company advertised that one of the “GOOD REASONS to get instant criminal checks on anyone right now” was to “check out tenants before they rent.”  It also used a Google Ad Words campaign to make sure its site appeared when people searched for background checks on nannies, babysitters, maids, and housekeepers.  What kind of information would buyers get?  Current and previous addresses, birth certificates, arrest histories, and marriage and divorce records, to name just a few examples. InfoTrack offered similar services to employers nationwide, including background screening reports with people’s driving records, education and employment information, criminal histories, and even records from sex offender registries. How does the FCRA come in?  The law defines a “consumer report” as a “communication of any information” by a consumer reporting agency (CRA) that bears on a person’s “credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living” which is used (or expected to be used) as a factor in establishing their eligibility for credit, insurance, employment, or other reasons outlined in the law. According to the FTC, what Instant Checkmate and InfoTrack were doing triggered the FCRA.  For example, companies covered by the law must follow procedures to assure their reports are as accurate as possible, must take steps to see that those using their reports have permissible purposes for accessing them, and must provide required User Notices explaining key protections for consumers.  The law imposes special requirements when CRAs provide reports containing public record information that could have an adverse effect on a person’s ability to get a job.  In that case, the CRA must either: 1) notify the consumer that it’s reporting the information in the public record; or 2) maintain “strict procedures” – that’s the language in the law – designed to ensure the reported public information is complete and up to date. You’ll want to read the complaints for specifics of where the FTC says the companies fell short, but one example cited in the lawsuit against InfoTrack offers an object lesson on why FCRA protections are so important to consumers – and how the consequences can be devastating when companies don’t live up to the law.  According to the FTC, the reports InfoTrack provided to prospective employers included information about whether a job applicant was on the National Sex Offender Registry.  The employer would provide the first and last name and the date of birth to help InfoTrack with its search.  The problem was that before the fall of 2011, no date of birth was available for many names on the Registry.  If InfoTrack’s search found more than one person with the same first and last name, it reported a “possible match” to employers and gave them reports that included several different people with the","id":3198181,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3198178,"description":"First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu kkrown September 5, 2025 | 10:00AM First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu Online marketplaces and third party sellers looking for a refresher on the INFORM Consumers Act should look no further than the recent settlement with Whaleco, Inc., which operates the online marketplace Temu. The complaint alleges the company failed to provide online shoppers with required information and tools. This is the first case brought to enforce the INFORM Act. The INFORM Act, which went into effect in 2023, seeks to make online transactions more transparent. Among other things, the law requires online marketplaces to collect, verify, and disclose certain information about high-volume third party sellers. ( Informing Businesses about the INFORM Consumers Act  has more on how the law defines terms, what’s required of online marketplaces, and the substantial penalties the FTC and state law enforcers may seek if online marketplaces violate the law.) In 2022, Temu launched its online marketplace in the United States, where consumers can view product listings on Temu’s homepage, through search results, and in gamified shopping experiences on the platform. According to the complaint, Temu violated the INFORM Act by failing to offer a mechanism for consumers to report suspicious activity — electronically and by phone — on the gamified product listings of many high-volume third party sellers and by failing to offer a telephonic mechanism on non-gamified product listings. The complaint also alleges that Temu did not post required identifying information about sellers on its gamified product listings or mobile site, and that Temu’s disclosures, when made, were difficult to find. According to the settlement, Temu will pay a $2 million civil penalty, provide a telephonic mechanism for consumers to report suspicious activity on listings, and make other required disclosures. Is your business covered by the INFORM Act? Make sure you:  Review the provisions of the INFORM Act thoroughly . Make sure you fully understand — and have measures in place to comply with — each of its requirements. Make required disclosures easy for consumers to notice . Required disclosures should stand out from any surrounding material and use plain language. Minimize or eliminate steps consumers need to take to reach required disclosures. Ensure required disclosures are available across all iterations of your platform . The INFORM Act mandates disclosures on all interfaces with product listings. And as your platforms evolve, regularly assess and update your compliance efforts. If your business sells through online platforms, check out  What Third Party Sellers Need to Know About the INFORM Consumers Act . This covers what sellers are impacted by the INFORM Act, what you can expect online platforms to require of you, and what information platforms must disclose about you to consumers. It also answers some questions you may have about the law. And if you spot a violation of the INFORM Act, r­eport it to the FTC using this  dedicated link","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:45 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2025/09/first-inform-consumers-act-enforcement-case-filed-against-online-marketplace-temu","titre":"First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu"},{"pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:07:09 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/02/ftc-challenges-online-trading-academys-money-making-claims","titre":"FTC challenges Online Trading Academy’s money-making claims","id":3197414,"description":"FTC challenges Online Trading Academy’s money-making claims lfair February 12, 2020 | 4:35PM FTC challenges Online Trading Academy’s money-making claims By Lesley Fair Ads for health products often target Boomer Consumers, but those aren’t the only claims pitched to people looking toward retirement. An FTC action alleges a company called Online Trading Academy has taken in more than $370 million by gearing its deceptive representations to that demographic. In addition, the complaint alleges violations of the Consumer Review Fairness Act. According to the FTC, the California-based operation, related companies, and three individual defendants advertise a “patented strategy” that consumers can apply “to any asset class including stocks, options, futures and currencies” to rake in big money. They claim their “training programs” – with price tags as high as $50,000 – will teach consumers how to “invest like the pros on Wall Street.” ”No matter your experience and goals,” people were told the defendants’ “proven” strategy was “designed to make money in any market, whether it’s going up or down.” The complaint recounts the process the defendants use to attract consumers through TV and radio ads, online promotions, and direct mail. First comes an in-person “preview” seminar. Next, people pay $299 for a three-day “orientation.” That’s where the defendants urge attendees to sign up for seminars costing thousands more. The defendants assign each attendee an “Education Counselor” – a/k/a salesperson working on commission – who follows up by phone or email. According to the complaint, the defendants train their Education Counselors not to “look like, act like or sound like, a traditional salesperson,” but instead to take on a “role” and lead consumers through “The Pain Funnel,” Q&A designed to overcome consumer qualms. To get people to sign up for more seminars, the defendants routinely offer to finance all or part of the cost with loans at 18%, with the promise to forgive the interest if the consumer pays the total off within six months. The FTC says that in some instances, the defendants lead buyers to believe they’ll be able to repay the loan quickly with money they’ll make using that “patented strategy.” So how much does Online Trading Academy say consumers will earn? A central theme of their pitch is “You don’t have to work on Wall Street to make money like Wall Street.” Infomercials feature purchasers claiming that “in three hours I made $12,000” or “I made $32,000 in less than seven trading days.” In a YouTube video, a retiree says he made “$40,000 in a single trade.” In addition, a speaker at a live event claimed consumers “could potentially make $50,000 of annual income with an account size as low as $5,000” because Online Trading Academy has “a patent on the fact that you can time the markets,” which “gives us the ability to know when to get in and when to get out, long-term and short-term.” Other speakers – including some of the named defendants – paint a picture of lavish lifestyles filled with international travel, a “super luxury car” every year, and homes in areas where kids have “live-in nannies, cooks, gardeners.” One speaker said the money he made using Online Trading Academy’s strategy allows him to live in an enclave so exclusive that a neighbor, a renowned Olympic gold medalist, taught his daughter to swim. But the facts paint a different picture. The FTC alleges the defendants don’t systematically collect data sufficient to substantiate their earnings claims. But even the evidence they do have gave them good reason to know their representations are deceptive. For starters, according to the FTC, the defendants know that few consumers who","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:07:08 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/08/stick-security-require-secure-passwords-authentication","titre":"Stick with Security: Require secure passwords and authentication","id":3197409,"description":"Stick with Security: Require secure passwords and authentication lfair August 11, 2017 | 10:47AM Stick with Security: Require secure passwords and authentication By Thomas B. Pahl, Acting Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection To make it harder for hackers to bluff their way onto a computer network, careful companies follow the advice of Start with Security and require strong authentication practices . We’ve considered FTC settlements, closed investigations, and the questions we get from businesses about implementing good authentication “hygiene.” Here are some tips on using effective authentication procedures to help safeguard your network. Insist on long, complex, and unique passwords. A password’s very reason for being is to be easy for a user to remember, but hard for a fraudster to figure out. Obvious choices like ABCABC, 121212, or qwerty are the digital equivalent of a “hack me” sign. Furthermore, experts have determined that passphrases or longer passwords are generally harder to crack. The smarter strategy is for companies to think through their standards, implement minimum requirements, and educate users about how to create stronger passwords. Also, when you install software, applications, or hardware on your network, computers, or devices, change the default password immediately. And if you design products that require consumers to use a password, configure the initial set-up so they have to change the default password. Example: A staff member attempts to select payroll as the password for the database that includes employee payroll information. The company sets up its system to reject an obvious choice like that. Example: To access the corporate network, a business allows employees to type in their username and a shared password common to everyone who works there. Employees are also allowed to use that shared password to access other services on the system, some of which contain sensitive personal information. The more prudent policy would be to require strong, unique passwords for each employee and to insist that they use different passwords to access different applications. Example: At a staff meeting, a company’s IT manager offers tips for employees about good password hygiene. She explains that passphrases or longer passwords are better than short passwords based on standard dictionary words or well-known information (for example, a child’s name, a pet, a birthday, or a favorite sports team). By establishing a more secure corporate password standard and educating employees about implementing it, the IT manager is taking a step to help her company reduce the risk of unauthorized access. Store passwords securely. A company’s first line of defense against data thieves is a workforce trained to keep passwords secret. But even the strongest password is ineffective if an employee writes it on a sticky note on her desk or shares it with someone else. Train your staff not to disclose passwords in response to phone calls or emails, including ones that may appear to be coming from a colleague. Con artists have been known to impersonate corporate officials by spoofing phone numbers or email addresses. A compromised password poses a particular risk if it can be used to open the door to even more sensitive information – for example, a database of other user credentials maintained on the network in plain, readable text. Make it difficult for data thieves to turn a lucky password guess into a catastrophic breach of your company’s most sensitive data by implementing policies and procedures to store credentials securely. Example: A new employee gets a call from someone who claims to be the company’s system administrator. The caller asks him to verify his network password. Because the new staffer learned about impersonation scams at an in-house security orientation, he refuses to disclose his password and instead reports the incident to the appropriate person in the company. Example: A company keeps user credentials and other passwords in plain","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements wfg-adm109 June 13, 2012 | 12:25PM Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements By Lesley Fair The lawsuit against data broker Spokeo is the FTC’s first Fair Credit Reporting Act case addressing the collection of online info — including data from social networking sites — when used in the context of employment screening.  But that’s not the only way the Spokeo settlement touches on social media.  The FTC also charged that Spokeo violated Section 5 by having employees post glowing recommendations of the company’s services on news and technology websites without disclosing their true identity. Perhaps just the work of a rogue cubicle occupant?  No, said the FTC.  According to the complaint , Spokeo directed its employees to write the comments.  Spokeo managers then edited what they wrote and had the staffers post the endorsements using account names provided by Spokeo.  The purpose, says the FTC, was to give readers the misleading impression that the laudatory words had been posted by independent consumers or business users of Spokeo. The FTC’s revisions to its Endorsement Guides made headlines a few years ago.  Ironically enough, the provision that seemed to attract the most attention is one that didn’t change.  It’s the law — and it’s always been the law under Section 5 — that consumers have a right to know when there’s a material connection between an advertiser and an endorser.  Here’s how the Guides put it:  \"When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement ( i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed.\" According to the FTC, by posting comments that conveyed the untruthful impression that they came from satisfied users of Spokeo’s services, Spokeo engaged in false and misleading practices.  To settle the endorsement count in the lawsuit, Spokeo has agreed that it won’t misrepresent, expressly or by implication, the status of any user of a product or service — for example, that someone is an independent, ordinary endorser if that’s not the case.  The company also will clearly and prominently disclose any material connection between an endorser and Spokeo (or any other entity advertising, selling, or promoting a product) when a connection exists.  What about the bogus endorsements already posted?  Spokeo has seven days to take all reasonable steps to pull them down. Looking for more about complying with the Endorsement Guides?  Read The FTC’s Revised Endorsement Guides: What People are Asking and watch this video: While you’re at it, share this post and those resources with your marketing staff, your ad agency, your PR firm, and anyone else who plays a role in your publicity and promotions. Next:  What the Spokeo settlement means for your business, your next ad campaign, and your job search","id":3195787,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2012/06/speaking-spokeo-part-2-companys-allegedly-bogus-endorsements","titre":"Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 14:06:13 +0200"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3194910,"description":"Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers lfair June 8, 2016 | 9:01AM Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers By Lesley Fair Combine two of the most talked-about consumer protection topics – health privacy and consumer-generated online content – and what do you get? A proposed FTC settlement with Practice Fusion, the largest cloud-based electronic health records company in the country, and six compliance tips for others in the industry. One of San Francisco-based Practice Fusion’s primary products is an electronic records system for outpatient providers. In 2009, the company launched “Patient Fusion,” an online portal where patients whose providers were already using Practice Fusion could view or download their health information or transmit it to another provider. Patient Fusion also let patients send and receive secure messages from their providers. Fast forward several years and the company decided to expand Patient Fusion to include a public directory where current and prospective enrollees could search for doctors geographically or by specialty, read patient reviews of providers, and request appointments. But Practice Fusion had to ask itself a question familiar to many online companies: How do we get the content – in this case, patient reviews? That’s the focus of the FTC’s lawsuit. According to the complaint , Practice Fusion solicited data in a misleading way that led some patients to believe they were sending follow-up messages directly to their doctors about their diagnosis, medical treatment, prescriptions, etc. – and not contributing content to a public website. Practice Fusion, however, populated its new site with the information those people provided, some of which was highly sensitive. Here’s what happened. After appointments with their doctors, patients received emails titled “How was your visit?” The message continued, “To help improve your service in the future, please let us know how your visit went” and included a link with rating stars. The message ended this way: Thank you, Dr. [Name] In a footer, the message said “This email was sent to you by Patient Fusion®, a tool Doctor [Name] uses to deliver the highest quality of care to patients.” Below that in smaller print it said “Sent on behalf of Doctor [Name]’s office by: Practice Fusion.” If patients clicked the link, they were taken to a page that asked for feedback about things like how long they had to wait for their appointment, the doctor’s bedside manner, and whether their medical concern was addressed. There also was a text box where patients were invited to “leave a review for your provider.” Below that was a pre-checked box with the phrase “Keep this review anonymous.” What did some people put in that box? Highly sensitive information directly addressed to their doctors, not evaluations meant to be shared publicly. Here are just a few examples: “Dr [name], My Xanax prescription that I received on Monday was for 1 tablet a day but usually it’s for 2 tablets a day. I have not taken it to the pharmacy yet. Can I pick up a new one, or can I get a prescription called into a pharmacy? Thanks, [patient’s full name] “I called today and left a message regarding my daughter and no one has returned my call. I think she is depressed and has stated several times this week that she wishes she was dead. Could someone please call me [phone number]?” “The cefuroxime axetil does not seem to be doing anything for me. I did a little research and I think I have a yeast infection called candida. Not sure what to do about it yet. I guess I will first try to change my diet. Medication? [patient’s full name] “I would like to make an appointment for my back pain and possible shingles. Can you please call me @ [phone number]? Thank you! [patient's full name]” “I HAVE NO INFECTION [healthcare provider name].  EVERYTHING WENT","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/06/practice-fusion-case-suggests-6-health-privacy-pointers","titre":"Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers"},{"pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/11/company-pay-22-million-offering-free-credit-scores-turned-out-be-not-so-free","titre":"Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3194913,"description":"Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free wfg-adm109 November 19, 2014 | 11:12AM Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free By Lesley Fair We’ve brought law enforcement actions – dozens of ‘em. We’ve held workshops, issued reports, and sent warning letters. If it takes sky writing, tap dancing, and a float in a Thanksgiving Day parade, we’ll do that, too. But here’s what’s not going to happen. The FTC is not giving up until businesses get the message that: 1) Free means free; and 2) Key terms and conditions have to be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. A $22 million settlement announced by the FTC and the AGs of Illinois and Ohio with a national credit monitoring service advertising so-called “free” credit scores emphasizes that point. Another note for practitioners: It's the FTC's third case alleging violations of ROSCA . One Technologies and related outfits marketed their credit monitoring programs, MyCreditHealth and ScoreSense, through at least 50 sites, including FreeScore360.com, FreeScoreOnline.com and ScoreSense.com. Their strategy was simple. Buy advertising on search engines so their ads show up near the top when people look for phrases like “free credit report\" and then follow up with a persuasive pitch: “View your latest Credit Scores from All 3 Bureaus in 60 seconds for $0!” According to the lawsuit , the defendants failed to clearly tell consumers that if they availed themselves of those “free” services and didn’t cancel within seven days, the defendants would ding their credit cards for $29.95 a month over and over and over again. The complaint includes screen shots of the defendants’ sites, but before looking at them, take out your reading glasses because they’ll come in handy in trying to locate where the defendants chose to tell people about that $29.95 monthly fee. One line of fine print added in late 2012 said “Free 7-Day trial when you order your 3 Free Credit Scores. Membership is then just $29.95 per month until you call to cancel.” The first problem: The type was tiny – a fraction of the size of the defendants’ multiple use of the word “free.” The second problem: Why should consumers even have to be on the look-out for the cost, given that the defendants so prominently advertised it as “free”? A second purported disclosure appeared as an obscure hyperlink on the page where people typed in their Social Security number and birthdate.  Sandwiched between the logos of various security firms and a large color button that said CONTINUE was this less-than-crystal-clear statement: By clicking on the ‘Continue’ button, you agree to the Offer Details, to the Terms and Conditions, acknowledge receipt of our Privacy Policy and agree to its terms . . . The “Offer Details” link triggered a small pop-up that said, among other things, “At the end of the 7-day trial period, your credit/debit card will be charged $29.95 on a monthly basis until you call to cancel.” Another place the defendants put the information was on a side panel of the Payment Form in white letters on a grey background – a color combination one of the defendants’ own employees described as “known to cause seizures in lab rats.” According to the complaint, once people spotted the unauthorized charges on their accounts, the defendants didn’t make it easy to stop the billing.  And even when people asked for their money back because they hadn’t approved of the charges, the defendants denied refunds to many of them. The lawsuit alleges violations of the FTC Act, as well as the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and related state rules. In addition, the complaint is the third FTC action to charge violations of ROSCA, the Restore Online Shoppers’"},{"pubDate":"Fri, 02 Oct 2026 08:12:17 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2015/01/pink-slip-slip-first-ftc-cases-challenging-deceptive-car-title-loans","titre":"Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans","id":3192605,"description":"Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans lfair January 30, 2015 | 9:12AM Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans By Lesley Fair She’s got a competition clutch with four on the floor And she purrs like a kitten ‘til the lake pipes roar. And if that ain’t enough to make you flip your lid, There's one more thing. I got the pink slip, Daddy. Back in the days of the Beach Boys’ “Little Deuce Coupe,” the only risk to a car title – the pink slip – was when hot rodders bet them on drag races.The FTC just announced its first two settlements with car title lenders that underscore additional risks to consumers’ pink slips and wallets. What should other companies consider if they want to avoid crossing the yellow line? The complaints challenge allegedly illegal practices by First American Title Lending of Georgia, which operates over 30 locations in that state, and Finance Select, which does business as Fast Cash Title Pawn at five Georgia locations and two in Alabama. What’s a car title loan? It’s typically a high-cost, short-term loan secured with a consumer’s free-and-clear car title. The lender holds on to the title as long as payments keep coming in. Of course, if consumers don’t pay, the lender takes the car. Car title loans tend to run between $1,000 and $10,000. They have high interest rates – the typical APR can be a whopping 300% – and short repayment periods, sometimes only 30 days. Each payment after that first month is called a “renewal.” Given that many consumers who take out car title loans are in financial distress, it’s not surprising that loans may extend over a much longer period. According to the FTC, the average is more like eight renewals. In addition to holding the consumer’s car title, the lender charges monthly fees, sometimes as much as 25% of the amount borrowed per month. That means that after eight renewals, a consumer taking out a $1,000 loan could wind up paying $2,000 in fees. The FTC says the companies’ ads lured consumers in with promises of “zero” interest, but then failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose hidden conditions attached to those eye-catching deals. For example, First American Title Lending touted “0% interest” in big headlines on websites, billboards, newspaper ads, yard signs, and elsewhere. What consumers weren’t clearly told was that they’d only get the 0% rate if they were new customers, if they paid by money order or certified funds, and if they paid in full within 30 days. If it took them longer to pay – the norm in the industry – consumers would have to pony up hefty finance charges calculated back to Day 1 of that \"0% interest\" loan, as well as the fees that started on Day 31. According to the complaint, Fast Cash Title Pawn similarly advertised “0% Title Loans,” sometimes adding “1st 30 days 0%,” without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the substantial strings that were attached – including that if the consumer didn’t pay in full within 30 days, they’d have to pay the finance charge for the first 30 days in addition to charges that kicked in on Day 31.  The lawsuits allege that the companies’ practices violate the FTC Act.  The FTC says First American Title Lending also violated the Truth in Lending Act and Reg Z. Under the proposed settlements, the companies will have to clearly disclose all the qualifying terms associated with getting a loan at the advertised rate and what the finance charge would be after an introductory period ends. The orders also prohibit misrepresentations about material terms of any loan agreement. The FTC’s message to members of the industry is that they’re not flying (driving?) under the radar. Truth-in-advertising standards apply to car title loans, too. What's more, companies will be held to well-established principles of","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/06/lights-out-unsubstantiated-pain-relief-claims-deceptive-native-advertising","titre":"Lights out on unsubstantiated pain relief claims and deceptive native advertising","pubDate":"Thu, 01 Oct 2026 14:10:47 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Lights out on unsubstantiated pain relief claims and deceptive native advertising lfair June 25, 2020 | 3:00PM Lights out on unsubstantiated pain relief claims and deceptive native advertising By Lesley Fair For consumers struggling with severe or chronic pain, ads for a product called Willow Curve appeared to offer light at the end of the tunnel. But the FTC alleges the marketers made false and unsubstantiated claims for the product , a device that applied low-level light and mild heat to the site of pain – and set people back between $599 and $799 in the process. The proposed settlement also sheds light on the FTC’s ongoing concern with deceptive native advertising. The complaint names two Michigan companies, Physician’s Technology, LLC, and Willow Labs, LLC, and two individuals affiliated with both businesses, Dr. Ronald Shapiro and David Sutton. In ads on national TV, satellite radio, online, and in social media, the defendants claimed that for people suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, diabetic neuropathy, nerve damage, shingles, fibromyalgia, lupus, torn tendons, and other serious conditions, the light-emitting Willow Curve would provide “real, lasting, proven pain relief, without the costs, risks or inconvenience associated with elective surgery, prescription drugs or office visits.” The defendants also sold Willow Curve through a network of distributors and resellers, supplying them with promotional materials touting the product’s purported health benefits. What’s more, the defendants claimed to have clinical studies to support what they said about Willow Curve and that the FDA had reviewed and approved the device for its advertised pain relief and other health benefits. The FTC challenges those claims as false. The complaint also alleges the defendants advertised a “risk-free” and “money-back” guarantee for consumers if they were “not completely satisfied” within a specified time period. But the FTC says in many instances, the defendants required consumers to jump through hoops to get the hefty purchase price back – for example, by first undertaking a regimen of 92 “treatments” over a 180-day period. According to the complaint, those requirements were hidden behind hyperlinks or buried in paperwork in the Willow Curve box. Despite the defendants’ claim that they issued refunds within seven to ten business days, the FTC says some people never got their money back. Others got a refund a year or more later or only after reporting the defendants to a State Attorney General or the Better Business Bureau. Another notable count relates to the defendants’ use of native advertising. For example, what appeared to be an online magazine article, “Understanding the Gender Gap in Sports Injuries and Treatment,” was actually advertising for Willow Curve. According to the FTC, the defendants hired a marketing company to write this article and others, which looked a lot like the non-advertising content of the magazines and newspapers in which the ads ran. The complaint alleges the articles weren’t identifiable as ads, including when consumers posted or shared them on social media or in email. The settlement includes a judgment of $22 million, which – based on the defendants’ financial condition – will be partially suspended when defendants Shapiro and Sutton each pay $200,000. Among other things, the proposed order requires the defendants to have randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled testing to support a broad range of pain relief claims. The order also prohibits them from representing expressly or by implication that advertising is a statement or opinion from an independent publisher or source. The case illuminates some issues of interest to advertisers. Support pain relief claims with sound science.   There’s a predictable cycle. As more consumers experience chronic and serious pain, more marketers position their products as purported remedies. What comes next?","id":3191275},{"pubDate":"Thu, 01 Oct 2026 08:11:56 +0200","titre":"Fighting Coronavirus scams: Taking stock","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/05/fighting-coronavirus-scams-taking-stock","id":3189429,"description":"Fighting Coronavirus scams: Taking stock chundycz May 8, 2020 | 9:01AM Fighting Coronavirus scams: Taking stock By Andrew Smith, Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, the FTC has released dozens of warning letters against people trying to make an illegal buck off the Coronavirus. More than a month in, it seems like a good time to look back at what’s happened. If you follow this blog, you’ll know these have been busy weeks – with advice about spotting the many scams we’re all facing, news of the warning letters sent on a wide range of scams, and some enforcement actions filed. You might wonder: Why send letters? Why not just sue the !*$@&#? Fair question. But the letters are working. And, given the scope of the scams out there right now, we want to get the best and fastest results we can with the most efficient tool we have. Right now, for these Coronavirus-related issues, that’s warning letters. In general, here’s how it goes: We spot someone advertising something with no proof that it works – and, in many cases, telling outright lies about its wonders. We send a letter pointing out the illegal things they’re doing. They then have 48 hours to tell us what they’ve done to resolve the problems we’ve raised. In nearly all cases so far, those who get the letters have stopped making the false claims or selling the scammy thing – whether cures from a product or earnings from a work-at-home scheme. Within 48 hours: no more lying to people, no more stealing people’s money. During a crisis like this, we’ve prioritized stopping as many bad actors as we can, as quickly as we can. And when a warning letter will do that, we’ll take that win. Most of the letters sent so far relate to the first scams out of the box: the treatments and cures – many of which we heard about from you. These treatments and cures were, of course, not at all what they claimed to be. The sellers peddled everything from teas and essential oils to IV or ozone “therapies,” stem cell treatments, and high doses of Vitamin C. All of these products have had one thing in common: There was no evidence – none – that they work against the Coronavirus. The warning letters are working in other areas, too. We’ve sent 13 letters to VoIP service providers and other companies, telling them we see how they’re helping illegal telemarketers or robocallers make calls related to COVID-19, and telling them to cut it out. And, just two weeks ago, we sent 10 letters to multi-level marketing (MLM) companies for making exaggerated earnings claims for their business opportunity selling fake Coronavirus treatments or cures from home. These companies hit the daily double: false income claims for their work-at-home program and unsubstantiated health claims for their products. But sometimes you need more firepower to get the desired result. It took a lawsuit to stop a company that, allegedly, pretended to be affiliated with the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program, fooling hundreds – if not thousands – of small businesses. And, last week, we filed suit against Whole Leaf Organics for allegedly claiming to treat not only the Coronavirus, but also cancer with CBD. Both cases are now pending. What we know about COVID-19 changes every week. And right now, the scammers are shifting their focus to the economic impact payments, among other things, to find new ways to get your money or information. But here are some things that remain true: Scammers are peddling cures and treatments with no proof they work. Remember: Right now, there is nothing that has been proven to prevent COVID-19. Anyone who tells you to pay them by gift card, money transfer, cash, or Bitcoin is a scammer. Period. And, if they say they’re from the government, they’re not. Never give your Social Security, bank account, or credit card number to anyone who contacts you. Again, not even if they say","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"FTC challenges influencer campaign for Warner Bros.’ Shadow of Mordor game lfair July 11, 2016 | 11:17AM FTC challenges influencer campaign for Warner Bros.’ Shadow of Mordor game By Lesley Fair In the popular video game Shadow of Mordor , players don’t just randomly slash, hack, and pillage. They battle specific opponents through a feature known as the Nemesis System. In the FTC’s lawsuit against Warner Bros. Home Entertainment , truth in advertising had a nemesis: paid pitches for Shadow of Mordor that Warner Bros. deceptively claimed were independent reviews. And read on for a startlingly candid statement by one of those influencers. To help launch Shadow of Mordor , Warner Bros. brought a social media company on board to coordinate a YouTube influencer campaign. One strategy was to hire influential gamers to post videos promoting Shadow of Mordor – videos that ultimately yielded more than 5.5 million YouTube views. In addition to free game access, Warner Bros. paid the influencers cash – ranging from hundreds of dollars to five figures. Influencers’ videos were subject to pre-approval and, according to the terms of the agreement, Warner Bros. “will be deemed the author and exclusive owner.” Warner Bros. was quite exacting in what else it required of influencers: “Video will feature gameplay” of the Shadow of Mordor game. “Video will have a strong verbal call-to-action to click the link in the description box for the viewer to go to the [game’s] website to learn more about the [game], to learn how they can register, and to learn how to play the game.” “Video will promote positive sentiment” about the game. “Video will not show bugs or glitches that may exist.” “Video will not communicate negative sentiment” about Warner Bros. Home Entertainment, its affiliates or the game. Warner Bros. also required “One Facebook post or one Tweet by Influencer in support of Video.” “Positive sentiment” posted for cash? That sounds like the kind of material connection between an advertiser and endorser the FTC says should be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. And for FTC watchers, that’s where the story gets almost as interesting as Shadow of Mordor . According to the complaint , influencers were directed to place sponsorship information in the text of the description box – that’s the collapsed box just below a YouTube video – not in the video itself. Furthermore, they were told to put “information about [the game] above the fold” in the description box and that the “description box will include FTC disclaimer disclosing that the post is sponsored.” But as the first example shows, only the top few lines of the description box are immediately visible. Without clicking the “Show More” button and possibly scrolling down, consumers wouldn’t see the sponsorship disclosure – especially since Warner Bros. mandated that game information had to come first. The second screenshot shows an example of the sponsorship information at the end of the expanded “Show More” box and illustrates – inadvertently perhaps – the FTC’s concern with the placement of the disclosure. In this example, the gamer wrote “This video sponsored by Warner Bros.” and followed with this telling statement: “No one reads this far into the description ... what are you doing snooping around.” Our sentiments exactly, Dude. In other instances, influencers’ videos included a half-hearted sponsorship disclosure – for example, “This has been one of my favorite sponsored games, so thanks that I could play it for free!!” – that failed to mention that in addition to free play, Warner Bros. was paying them thousands of dollars. The complaint charges that Warner Bros. falsely represented that the Shadow of Mordor gameplay videos reflected the independent opinions or experiences of impartial","id":3189423,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/07/ftc-challenges-influencer-campaign-warner-bros-shadow-mordor-game","titre":"FTC challenges influencer campaign for Warner Bros.’ Shadow of Mordor game","pubDate":"Thu, 01 Oct 2026 08:11:55 +0200"},{"pubDate":"Wed, 30 Sep 2026 14:10:25 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/03/ftc-takes-unproven-health-claims-own-dorsements","titre":"FTC takes on unproven health claims and “own-dorsements”","id":3187485,"description":"FTC takes on unproven health claims and “own-dorsements” lfair March 19, 2020 | 4:38PM FTC takes on unproven health claims and “own-dorsements” By Lesley Fair It’s a disturbing trend. Companies are targeting older consumers, claiming to have easy answers for serious diseases for which there may not be a proven cure. That’s one allegation in the FTC’s action against Nevada-based telemarketer Health Center, Inc.   Another count challenges what we call “own-dorsements.” According to Health Center’s telemarketing scripts, websites, social media, and testimonials from supposedly satisfied customers, the company’s Rejuvi-Cell oral spray and Rejuvi-Sea and Rejuvi-Stem pills could treat a broad range of medical conditions: everything from cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease to hepatitis, heart attacks, and high cholesterol. In promoting the products, which sold in packages priced between $350 and $800, the company checked the buzzword boxes with science-y sounding terms like homeopathic , adult stem cell enhancement , and marine phytoplankton . The company claimed that diseases like diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and dementia “could be greatly reduced if not eliminated” through the use of its products. According to the complaint , Health Center’s telemarketers – who were instructed to follow the scripts word-for-word – told consumers the main ingredient of Rejuvi-Sea “alkalizes your body . . . so you can’t grow cancer cells.” Then there were heartfelt testimonials from purported customers who described themselves as “walking on air” and “amazed and redeemed,” thanks to the products. But the FTC says the company hasn’t conducted any studies demonstrating the products cure or treat any diseases or health conditions and there are no human clinical studies in the scientific literature to that effect. What’s more, the lawsuit alleges that some of those glowing endorsements that appeared to come from satisfied customers across the country were actually “own-dorsements” – testimonials from Health Center’s own employees. To settle the case , the defendants have agreed to injunctive provisions, including a requirement that a broad range of health claims must have the support of randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled human clinical testing. Almost all of the $8.6 million judgment will be suspended, based on their financial condition. Aside from the obvious points that the FTC continues to take a close look at cures targeting older consumers and that companies shouldn’t palm off endorsements from employees as independent opinions, the case illustrates two other important principles. First, the defendants’ unlawful practices were the subject of an earlier enforcement action by the Iowa Attorney General. Companies shouldn’t have to be told once of the need to substantiate their health claims – and they certainly shouldn’t have to be told twice. Second, the complaint includes a count for violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule , which prohibits misrepresentations about “any material aspect of the performance, efficacy, nature, or central characteristics of goods or services that are the subject of a sales offer.” That’s yet another reason to keep your telemarketing efforts above board .","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","description":"The Federal Trade Commission announced today that is considering whether to update its Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses or take other action to prevent online platforms from engaging in ad-optimization practices that may be furthering impersonation scams. In an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to be published in the Federal Register , the FTC is seeking comment on the extent to which ad-optimization tools and services offered by social media, search engines and other digital marketplace platforms further efforts by scammers to impersonate legitimate businesses and government agencies using online ads.  “Free markets depend on trust, transparency and consumers’ ability to make informed choices. Impersonation scams—especially when amplified by digital platforms that profit from them—do more than rob Americans of their hard-earned money,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “They erode the very foundation that allows competitive markets to function. Today’s impersonation scams are no longer the work of isolated con artists; they are sophisticated, highly engineered operations powered by the same advertising and targeting tools that platforms sell to legitimate businesses. Consumers reported nearly $3.5 billion in losses to impersonation fraud last year, and the true cost is likely far higher. “The Commission’s mission has always been to safeguard the conditions under which competitive markets can thrive. Increasingly, consumers rely on a small number of dominant digital platforms for everyday transactions—from shopping, banking and travel bookings to accessing government services. Yet these platforms are the very places fraudsters seek out consumers, exploiting their trust while platforms profit from optimizing and disseminating scam ads. “Today’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking asks whether the Commission should require platforms to take concrete steps to prevent impersonation ads from ever reaching consumers. By exploring potential new obligations platforms would have to follow, the rulemaking aims to ensure that Americans participate in an online economy where truthful information guides consumer choice.”  Impersonation scams have topped the list of fraud complaints reported to the FTC by consumers in recent years. In 2025, the FTC received more than 1 million reports about imposter scams from consumers, who reported losing nearly $3.5 billion to such scams. In addition, online platforms play an important role in many scams. For example, nearly 30% of consumers who reported losing money to scammers in 2025 said they were first contacted on social media platforms, with reported losses reaching $2.1 billion. The ANPRM notes that impersonation scams have been amplified by search engines, social media and other digital marketplace platforms that profit from optimizing online ads for third parties, regardless of whether the third parties are legitimate. The ANPRM seeks comment on a wide range of topics related to the use of these ad-optimization tools and services and the proliferation of ads that impersonate businesses and government agencies including:  The financial incentives driving these platforms to offer ad-optimization tools and services, details on how each tool and service optimizes the content and delivery of the ad, and the steps platforms currently take to prevent the use of such tools and services for deceptive advertising The extent to which these platform ad-optimization tools and services constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices by furthering impersonation scams Whether these unfair or deceptive acts or practices are prevalent in the marketplace and whether the Commission should address these acts or practices by amending the existing Impersonation Rule, proposing a new separate rule or implementing non-regulatory Measures Measures the Commission could consider in crafting any new regulations, including vetting","id":3176041,"titre":"FTC Seeks Public Comment on Whether to Update Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses to Address Platforms’ Role in Promoting Impersonation Scams","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/09/ftc-seeks-public-comment-whether-update-rule-impersonation-government-businesses-address-platforms","pubDate":"Fri, 25 Sep 2026 08:10:48 +0200"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/09/fleetcor-agrees-pay-100-million-resolve-administrative-action-after-federal-court-finds-it-violated","titre":"FleetCor Agrees to Pay $100 Million to Resolve Administrative Action After Federal Court Finds that It Violated the FTC Act by Charging Unauthorized Fees","pubDate":"Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:08:58 +0200","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","description":"FleetCor and its CEO will pay $100 million to settle a Federal Trade Commission administrative action alleging that the company charged its customers, who overwhelmingly are small businesses, undisclosed fees in connection with their use of fuel cards that FleetCor falsely promised businesses would save them money. In a complaint first filed in federal court in 2019 , the FTC alleged that FleetCor Technologies Inc., now known as Corpay Inc., and its CEO Ronald Clarke imposed a broad array of unauthorized fees that its customers never knew about and did not agree to pay, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars and harming tens of thousands of customers.  In addition, FleetCor charged late fees to customers who had either paid on time or were prevented by FleetCor from paying on time. FleetCor also misrepresented the gas savings, fraud-control features, and fees associated with its fuel cards. “FleetCor deceived its small business customers by promising fuel savings that never materialized, while unfairly charging them hidden and unauthorized fees,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “In addition to the relief the FTC has obtained in federal court, this order will help return money to the customers the company took advantage of.” According to the complaint, FleetCor often waited to begin charging many fees until several billing cycles passed, making the fees less noticeable to consumers. The complaint also alleged that FleetCor’s invoices did not disclose that any fees were being charged, requiring customers to proactively view other account management reports. Even on those documents, many fees were obscured among other information or not listed at all. In 2023, a federal district court entered summary judgment for the FTC on all counts, finding that FleetCor had charged its customers hidden or otherwise unauthorized fees and misrepresented the gas savings and fees associated with FleetCor’s fuel cards. The court-imposed order permanently prohibits FleetCor from: billing a customer for any charge unless FleetCor has obtained the customer’s express informed consent and provided clear and unavoidable information about the charge; hiding material information about a charge behind a hyperlink; and making deceptive claims about its fuel cards. In 2026, a federal appeals court upheld the summary judgment against FleetCor on all counts and affirmed the permanent injunction against it.  The court affirmed the judgment against Clarke on all but one count and vacated the injunction as to Clarke.  As part of the settlement order with the FTC, FleetCor and Clarke will pay $100 million, which will be used to provide redress to the company’s business customers harmed by its practices. FleetCor and Clarke have also agreed not to oppose reimposition of a federal court injunction against Clarke.  The Commission vote to accept the consent agreement was 1-0-1. FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson is recused. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments will appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov. NOTE: When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to","id":3160549},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","description":"Today, 22 states joined the Federal Trade Commission in filing suit against Amazon, alleging that the company engaged in deceptive and unfair practices that secretly inflated prices in its online search advertising auctions. The complaint   alleges that, for over seven years, Amazon has covertly and substantially increased the prices that more than one million brands and sellers were required to pay to advertise on its platform. As a result, the complaint alleges that Amazon’s scheme has likely extracted tens of billions of dollars from its unwitting advertising customers. “When one of the world’s largest online retailers engages in unfair and deceptive conduct, the impact can be staggering,” said Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “Amazon has millions of advertising customers who were misled into paying significantly higher prices. These higher costs were largely passed on to American consumers. The FTC under President Trump won’t allow this deception to continue.” The FTC, along with the attorneys general of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont and Washington, allege Amazon has imposed undisclosed surcharges on its advertising customers, which include over 500,000 small- and medium-sized businesses that participated in auctions for advertising placements on Amazon.com and its mobile app. In these auctions, prospective advertisers bid to place Sponsored Product ads, Sponsored Brands ads and Display Ads alongside the results that appear when a consumer searches for a product using a keyword on Amazon’s store. Placements are auctioned to the highest-ranked bidder for each keyword. As described in the complaint, Amazon has represented to prospective advertisers for years that Amazon runs “second price” auctions where the winner of the auction would only pay “one cent more than the next highest bidder” for each successful bid for an advertising keyword. However, in practice, the complaint alleges that Amazon has charged its Sponsored Products advertisers their own winning bid close to 80% of the time and has effectively converted its nominally “second price” auction into a first price auction. According to the complaint, Amazon’s “second price” auctions have been described by Amazon, and understood by advertisers, to be run as generalized second-price, or GSP auctions, which have been the accepted industry standard for digital advertising placements. The complaint states that Amazon has made these or similar representations on its website, in training videos and in other public-facing materials, as well as in presentations made to advertisers by its hundreds of sales personnel.  The type of auction matters to advertisers because it impacts how they bid. In a sealed first-price auction—the type of auction where winners pay the amount of their winning bid—bidders run the risk that they might overbid. So, in repetitive auctions for the same goods, they will often reduce their bid to determine what the minimum amount needed to win future auctions might be. This is called bid shading. In second-price auctions, bidders are more likely to bid higher, closer to their true value for the product, because they will only be liable to pay the least bid amount needed to win under the auction’s rules.  As alleged in the complaint, Amazon told advertisers it ran a GSP, but for years its auction pricing had “a surcharge hidden in it,” in the words of one internal Amazon document. The complaint alleges that, beginning in 2019, Amazon changed its auction rules without notice by adding an undisclosed surcharge that Amazon referred to internally as a “soft reserve price.” This resulted in advertisers paying substantially more than the price determined by the GSP auction.  According to the complaint, Amazon","id":3127461,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/08/ftc-states-sue-amazon-over-secret-ad-surcharge-scheme","titre":"FTC, States Sue Amazon Over Secret Ad Surcharge Scheme","pubDate":"Tue, 01 Sep 2026 08:10:10 +0200"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/08/ftc-finalizes-orders-cox-media-group-two-other-firms-settling-charges-they-deceived-customers-about","titre":"FTC Finalizes Orders with Cox Media Group, Two Other Firms Settling Charges They Deceived Customers About “Active Listening” AI-Powered Marketing Service","pubDate":"Fri, 28 Aug 2026 08:07:59 +0200","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","description":"The Federal Trade Commission finalized orders requiring Cox Media Group (CMG) and two other firms 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. In three separate complaints first announced in May , the FTC alleged that Georgia-based media and marketing company CMG Media Corporation, which does business as  Cox Media Group , and two marketing firms it worked with, New Hampshire-based MindSift LLC  and Wisconsin-based  1010 Digital Works LLC ,  deceived customers by claiming they used a special algorithm to listen in on and detect pertinent conversations from smart devices in order to target ads to consumers within a specific geographic region. Contrary to these companies’ claims, however, the marketing service wasn’t based on voice data, and consumers hadn’t opted into this service. If the service had functioned as advertised, this collection and use of consumers’ voice data without adequate consent would itself violate the FTC Act. Under the proposed orders settling the FTC’s allegations,  CMG must pay $880,000 while both  MindSift and  1010 Digital Works  must each pay $25,000, which will be used to provide redress to CMG customers impacted by these practices. In addition, each defendant is prohibited from making any misrepresentation about the qualities or features of its advertising or marketing services; the collection and use of voice data and whether consumers have provided their consent to collect, use or disclose their voice data; and the geographic targeting capabilities of its advertising or marketing services. After receiving two comments on the proposed settlement orders, the Commission voted 2-0 to give final approval to the consent","id":3120376},{"pubDate":"Wed, 05 Aug 2026 07:59:31 +0200","titre":"Ninth Circuit Partially Revives ‘Low-FODMAP’ Labeling Suit","url":"https://www.dailyintakeblog.com/2026/08/ninth-circuit-partially-revives-low-fodmap-labeling-suit/","id":3077463,"description":"A Ninth Circuit panel has partially revived (Law360 subscription required) a lawsuit alleging that FDA and USDA nutrient content claim regulations violate First Amendment rights by preventing the inclusion of certain information about fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and poloyols (FODMAPs) on food labels. The lawsuit was initially filed against FDA, USDA, and USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) in March 2023 after one plaintiff submitted a label to FSIS for approval. FSIS denied the approval, telling the company that it must “remove all references to digestible, gut loving, and fodmap.” According to the plaintiff, FDA had never raised concerns about the claims on labels of FDA-regulated foods. According to the Ninth Circuit, FSIS told the company that it discussed the proposed label with FDA, and FDA agreed that the FODMAP claims were impermissible nutrient content claims. The company modified the label, then filed the lawsuit along with a consumer plaintiff. The plaintiffs claim that the challenged regulations violate their rights to speak and to receive information. The district court dismissed the case, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to show they had standing and exhausted their administrative remedies. The panel reversed that decision in part, finding that the consumer plaintiff adequately showed standing as a “listener” under the First Amendment, based on needs for a low-FODMAP diet and because she alleged that food producers “would be reasonably likely to include FODMAP-related information on food labels in the absence of the challenged FDA and USDA regulations.” The panel also found that the company plaintiff sufficiently pleaded standing related to claims on FDA-regulated products based on the Agency's threatened enforcement of its regulations. However, the panel found that the company plaintiff did not exhaust its administrative remedies and, therefore, upheld the lower court's ruling on that issue. While this ruling deals only with the standing issue in the case, it highlights that both consumers and companies may have standing to challenge food labeling regulations on a First Amendment basis. Here, the claims that food products are “low-FODMPAP foods” would currently be considered an impermissible nutrient content claim because “low” claims must be made in accordance with the definitions in 21 CFR 101 Subpart D , 9 CFR 317 Subpart B , and 9 CFR 381 Subpart Y . Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor food labeling","source":"The Daily Intake"},{"pubDate":"Tue, 21 Jul 2026 08:04:33 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/07/founders-celsius-network-ordered-pay-165-million-resolve-ftc-charges","titre":"Founders of Celsius Network Ordered to Pay $16.5 Million to Resolve FTC Charges","id":3042974,"description":"Alexander Mashinsky, the former CEO of cryptocurrency platform Celsius Network Inc. (Celsius), and his business partners, Shlomi Daniel Leon and Hanoch “Nuke” Goldstein, will pay a total of $16.5 million to resolve the Federal Trade Commission’s charges that they deceived users by falsely promising that deposits made to their cryptocurrency platform would be safe and always available. Mashinsky and Leon have also agreed to a ban on marketing or selling products or services that can be used to deposit, exchange, invest or withdraw assets. Similarly, Goldstein has agreed to a ban on marketing or selling retail products or services that can be used to buy, sell, deposit, withdraw, distribute or trade cryptocurrency. In its  July 2023 complaint , the FTC alleged that Celsius and its co-founders promised consumers that Celsius was “safer” than a bank or other traditional financial institutions and misrepresented that their deposits were safe because Celsius earned profits at “no risk” to consumers by making secured loans to other exchanges. The FTC says the company and its top executives deceived users by falsely promising them that they could withdraw their deposits at any time, that the company maintained a $750 million insurance policy for deposits, that it had sufficient reserves to meet customer obligations and that those in its Earn program could earn rewards as high as 18% annual percentage yield on deposits. They also repeatedly claimed that the company did not make any unsecured loans. The FTC, however, alleged that the promises were false and that its top executives continued to claim that customers’ deposits were safe days before the company filed for bankruptcy. The settlement orders with the FTC require Mashinsky to pay $10 million, Leon to pay $4.1 million and Goldstein to pay $2.4 million. In addition,  the order with Mashinsky ,  the order with Leon ,   and the proposed order with Goldstein   will also prohibit the Celsius co-founders from: Marketing or selling products or services that can be used to deposit or withdraw certain assets, as Mashinsky, Leon and Goldstein’s deceptive conduct led to enormous consumer injury; Making misrepresentations regarding the benefits of any product or service or any other material fact about any other product or service; and Violating the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, including by obtaining or attempting to obtain customer financial information by making false, fictitious or fraudulent representations; and Finally, the orders with Mashinsky and Leon prohibit them from disclosing nonpublic personal information about consumers unless the consumer first provides express informed consent. The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order with Mashinsky was 3–0 and was approved prior to the departure of former Commissioner Melissa Holyoak. The Commission votes approving the stipulated final orders with Leon and Goldstein were both 2–0. The FTC filed the proposed orders in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court Judge. The staff attorneys on this matter are Stephanie Liebner, Carlton Mosley and Sally Tieu of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"description":"The Federal Trade Commission finalized an order with Publishing.com LLC and its two principals, settling allegations that they misled consumers about how much money consumers were likely to earn using their self-publishing products. Under the order finalized by the Commission, Publishing.com and its principals, CEO Christian Mikkelsen and Chief Product Officer Rasmus Mikkelsen, will pay $1.5 million and be required to substantiate earnings claims in the future. In a complaint first announced in April 2026, the FTC alleged that Publishing.com claimed its programs and services would help consumers earn substantial income publishing e-books and audiobooks online. The FTC further alleged that Christian and Rasmus Mikkelsen claimed that they personally used this system to obtain significant wealth through online self-publishing. The FTC alleged, however, that most consumers who bought Publishing.com’s products and services never made the income the company promised in its advertising. Consumers who sought refunds discovered that Publishing.com imposed many additional conditions, which were often buried in fine print or the company’s lengthy terms of service, that made it difficult or impossible for consumers to get their money back. The FTC’s complaint further alleged that the company failed to disclose when reviews were written by company employees or other interested people, including relatives of the Mikkelsens, and that the company offered incentives to people for providing positive testimonials. The final order approved by the Commission prohibits Publishing.com and the Mikkelsens from: Making earnings claims unless they are not misleading and they have a reasonable basis to support them; Making the specific misrepresentations detailed in the complaint, as well as misrepresentations concerning material facts in the sale of any product or service; Failing to disclose terms and conditions of any cancellation or refund policy or failing to promptly honor a consumer’s cancellation or refund request in accordance with company policies; and Making misrepresentations regarding endorsements and reviews. The final order also requires the company and the Mikkelsens to disclose any unexpected material connections with endorsers or reviewers and any payments or other incentives for posting reviews. The Commission voted 2-0 to finalize the order and sent responses to the five","id":3004264,"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/07/ftc-approves-final-order-against-publishingcom-settling-allegations-it-misled-consumers","titre":"FTC Approves Final Order Against Publishing.com, Settling Allegations It Misled Consumers","pubDate":"Fri, 03 Jul 2026 08:06:27 +0200"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-requires-amazon-pay-225-million-resolve-charges-it-knowingly-violated-fair-credit-reporting-act","titre":"FTC Requires Amazon to Pay $2.25 Million to Resolve Charges It Knowingly Violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act","pubDate":"Wed, 01 Jul 2026 08:09:43 +0200","description":"Amazon will pay $2.25 million in civil penalties to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the online retail giant knowingly violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by refusing to provide transaction records to consumers whose personal information was used by identity thieves to commit fraud. The complaint , filed by the Department of Justice upon notification and referral from the FTC, alleged that in numerous instances, Amazon.com Inc. failed to comply with Section 609(e) of the FCRA, which requires companies to, within 30 days of a consumer’s request, provide victims of identity theft with application and business transaction records about fraudulent transactions made in their names. According to the complaint, Amazon had no written policy to respond to Section 609(e) requests until early 2025, after it learned of the FTC’s investigation, despite prior outreach from FTC staff advising the company to review its compliance with Section 609(e). “Amazon often put identity theft victims through a Kafkaesque ordeal by demanding they identify the thief who stole their information before Amazon would release the records the law entitles them to—records that could help victims protect themselves and recover from the fraudulent conduct,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC will not allow companies to simply ignore their legal obligations, especially those designed to support and protect identity theft victims.” Many consumers who contacted Amazon to report fraud were told by its customer service agents that they could not provide the requested records for “security” or “privacy” reasons, the complaint alleged. For example, one consumer reported that when they contacted Amazon seeking business records related to unauthorized charges stemming from a fraudulent account, a company representative said they could not share details about the other account that had used the consumer’s credit card for “security reasons” unless the consumer guessed the name on the account (the name used by the identity thief), which the consumer was unable to do after making 30 attempts. The complaint alleged that in other instances, Amazon agents told consumers they were not able to access the requested records. Amazon even refused to provide application and business transaction records to law enforcement agencies who had been authorized to, and who did, submit requests to Amazon on behalf of consumers who were victims of identity theft. Some frustrated consumers resorted to sending copies of the FCRA and FTC guidance to Amazon in hopes of receiving the requested records, but Amazon still failed to comply with the law. The complaint also alleged that in some cases where Amazon ultimately provided requested records, it failed to respond to consumers within the 30-day timeframe required by the FCRA. In addition to the $2.25 million civil penalty—a record for a Section 609(e) violation—the proposed order will prohibit Amazon from failing to comply with Section 609(e) of the FCRA, requiring the company to provide the records lawfully requested by identity theft victims and law enforcement agencies acting on their behalf. The order also requires Amazon to provide notice to consumers about how identity theft victims can request records under the FCRA. The company must also contact consumers who had requested records since April 2024 from Amazon but did not receive them to inform these consumers that it may have additional records and that the consumers may request those records from Amazon. This is the second case the FTC has brought using its authority under Section 609(e) of the FCRA. The FTC announced its first case involving a violation of Section 609(e) of the FCRA in 2020 against Kohl’s Department Stores Inc . The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize the staff to refer the complaint to the DOJ and to approve the proposed stipulated order. The DOJ filed the complaint and final","id":2997627,"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"pubDate":"Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:09:40 +0200","titre":"FTC Data Show People Reported Losing $3.5 Billion to Imposter Scams in 2025","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-data-show-people-reported-losing-3-point-5-billion-imposter-scams-2025","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":2959787,"description":"New data from the Federal Trade Commission reveal that people reported losing a staggering $3.5 billion to imposter scams in 2025, with reported losses increasing nearly three times since 2020. FTC data also show that people reported imposter scams more than any other fraud category in 2025—nearly one in three fraud reports were about imposter scams. These scams lured consumers through text, phone, email, social media, search engine results and other means. Some of the costliest impersonation scams start with a fake security alert, often from a bank. People are convinced to move money to “protect” it, with their losses often limited only by their available funds. Last year, people reported losing nearly $1 billion to business impersonators with the highest reported losses to bank impersonators—and about $920 million to government impersonators, up from $866 million and $789 million respectively in 2024. The FTC has seen a striking increase in reported fraud losses to all types of fraud—about $16 billion was reported lost in 2025, the highest on record and an increase of about 25% compared to the 2024 figure. “Consumers derive enormous benefits from competitive markets built on truthful information. But fraud undermines that foundation, impeding the market process and preventing markets from operating efficiently,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC will use every tool available to combat one of the most pernicious forms of fraud—government and business impersonation—and to protect the integrity of the digital economy.” The data underscore the importance of the FTC’s work with the  Elder Justice Coordinating Council (EJCC) , which is working to help raise awareness of imposter scams and other scams impacting older adults as well as other consumers. This year, the FTC, along with the Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services and members of the EJCC, is leading the Never Ever campaign, a public-private coordinated consumer education effort to raise awareness of government and business imposter scams. In addition to the federal agency members of the EJCC , the campaign also includes private sector representatives such as the American Bankers Association, USTelecom, Google and Microsoft. To help the public spot imposter scams, EJCC members launched the Never Ever campaign, which is aimed at promoting messaging on the key actions that government and businesses will Never Ever take. The Never Ever campaign will run from June 15 to June 26, in conjunction with World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. This first-of-its-kind public-private partnership includes participants from a wide range of organizations and is aimed at directing consumers to a website that includes information and resources to help them avoid imposter scams and what to do if they spot one. Enforcement Actions To help combat impersonation scams, the FTC in 2024 finalized the Impersonation Rule. The Rule gives the agency stronger tools to combat and deter scammers who impersonate government agencies and businesses, enabling the FTC to file federal court cases seeking to get money back to injured consumers and civil penalties against rule violators. Since then, the FTC has vigorously enforced the rule and brought a dozen enforcement actions that have resulted in halting imposter schemes and obtained over $70 million in redress for consumers. In 2025, the FTC brought law enforcement actions under the Impersonation Rule against:  American Tax Service (IRS imposter scheme);  MediaAlpha (government imposter scheme to sell health insurance);  Click Profit (business imposter money making scam);  Blackstone Legal (phantom debt business imposter scheme) and  Accelerated Debt Settlement (government and business imposter scheme that targeted older adults for debt relief). More recently, the  FTC filed a complaint against Innovative Partners in April 2026 , alleging the operators"},{"id":2893630,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission today began enforcing the TAKE IT DOWN Act (TIDA), a law requiring platforms, at the request of victims, to remove intimate photos or videos shared online without victims’ consent. As part of its enforcement role, the FTC has launched TakeItDown.ftc.gov , a website allowing victims and survivors to submit complaints about platforms that have failed to act on valid requests for the removal of nonconsensual intimate images. The website also accepts complaints about platforms that have failed to create a process for people to request removal of these images. “Thanks to First Lady Melania Trump’s dedication, the public, especially children, will have recourse against digital exploitation and extortion,” said FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “In the age of AI, anyone can be targeted, and that becomes even more appalling if children are involved. The TAKE IT DOWN Act empowers families and provides the FTC with an effective tool to protect minors against this form of abuse.” The FTC enforces Section 3 of the TAKE IT DOWN Act, which set a May 19, 2026, deadline for covered platforms to give people a way to request the removal of intimate photos or videos shared online without their consent and to remove those intimate images, and known identical copies, within 48 hours of a valid request. The FTC has published new guidance to help consumers in the event that nonconsensual intimate images of them are posted online. The FTC also issued  guidance for businesses about how to ensure they are complying with the law. Underscoring the FTC’s commitment, Chairman Ferguson  sent letters last week to major platforms—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Automattic, Bumble, Discord, Match Group, Meta, Microsoft, Pinterest, Reddit, SmugMug, Snapchat, TikTok and X—reminding them of businesses’ obligation to comply fully with TIDA no later than May 19,","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","pubDate":"Wed, 20 May 2026 08:10:24 +0200","titre":"FTC Begins Enforcing the TAKE IT DOWN Act","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/05/ftc-begins-enforcing-take-it-down-act"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/04/ftc-seeks-public-comment-unfair-deceptive-fee-practices-online-food-grocery-delivery-services","titre":"FTC Seeks Public Comment on Unfair and Deceptive Fee Practices in Online Food and Grocery Delivery Services","pubDate":"Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:10:57 +0200","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","description":"The Federal Trade Commission today announced it is seeking public comment on whether a rule is needed to address unfair or deceptive fee practices in connection with the services provided by online food and grocery delivery platforms nationwide. As detailed in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to be published shortly in the Federal Register, the FTC is seeking written comments, including data, evidence, analyses, and arguments, to help determine how best to prevent unfair or deceptive acts or practices and to ensure that the agency addresses concerns from both consumers and industry. “Online grocery fees that are unclear, inconsistently disclosed, or revealed only at the last moment before consumers make a purchase distort competition and harm consumers,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Clear and truthful pricing is essential to competitive markets. The Commission’s enforcement track record suggests that consumers continue to face a suite of fees that prevent them from making informed comparisons. The Trump-Vance FTC is committed to addressing unlawful grocery delivery pricing that obscures the true cost of groceries.” Unfair or deceptive fee practices violate the FTC Act. The Commission recently brought several actions against online food delivery platforms for unfair or deceptive practices that violated the FTC Act. For example, in December 2025, the FTC announced a $60 million settlement with  Instacart over allegations it falsely advertised “free delivery” on consumers’ first three orders on the platform and then charged them service fees that were not disclosed until checkout. And, in December 2024, the FTC obtained a $25 million settlement with  GrubHub over allegations it misled consumers about the cost of delivery on its platform. These cases illustrate that hidden and misleading fees and charges are a recurring problem related to online delivery platforms, despite enforcement actions to protect consumers’ interests. Also, while numerous states have recently adopted laws requiring food and grocery delivery platforms to more clearly disclose fees and include all mandatory fees in advertised prices, they have not adopted uniform rules that apply to all food delivery platforms across the country. The ANPRM asks the public to comment on whether a rule is needed to prevent unfair or deceptive fee practices in connection with online food delivery services including: Total Price. Do food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose the total price for food or grocery items ordered for local delivery or pickup? Fees and Charges. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose the existence, nature, purpose, refundability, or recipient of any fees, charges, or other costs for a delivery or pickup order? Variable or Contingent Fees . Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose factors used to determine any fees, charges, or other costs that are variable or contingent on consumer selections, such as number or type of items bought or delivery location? Material Restrictions. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose whether fees, charges, or other costs are mandatory or optional, or any material restrictions, limitations, or restrictions that may result in additional charges or that may diminish the consumer’s use of the good or service? Price Differentials. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose whether the prices of items ordered are the same as, or different from, the prices of the same items offered in the store or restaurant? Personalized Pricing.  Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose whether the prices of items ordered are the same as, or different from, the prices of the same items offered to other consumers on the platform? Discounts or Promotions. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose material","id":2826725},{"pubDate":"Fri, 10 Apr 2026 08:08:44 +0200","titre":"StubHub Refunding $10 Million in Fees to Consumers After Deceptive Ticket Pricing","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/04/stubhub-refunding-10-million-fees-consumers-after-deceptive-ticket-pricing","id":2818173,"description":"StubHub, the nation’s largest ticket exchange and resale ticket provider, will pay $10 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the company violated the FTC Act and the agency’s Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees by deceptively advertising ticket prices on its website without clearly and conspicuously disclosing up-front how much consumers actually would pay, including all mandatory fees. “The Commission’s Fees Rule makes it very clear that the total price of live-event tickets must be disclosed up-front to enable consumers to make fully informed purchasing decisions,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Price transparency is essential to a free and competitive marketplace. Today’s settlement underscores the Commission’s commitment to ensuring that consumers pay the price they are promised.” The FTC’s action against StubHub Holdings, Inc., follows a  warning letter the agency sent the online ticket platform in May 2025 stating that multiple prices displayed on its website appeared to be in violation of the Fees Rule. Under the Rule, which took effect on May 12, 2025 , it is an unfair and deceptive practice for any business to offer, display, or advertise the price of a live-event ticket without clearly, conspicuously, and most prominently disclosing the total price, which the Rule defines as “the maximum total of all fees or charges a consumer must pay for any good(s) or service(s) and any mandatory ancillary good or service.” Misrepresenting prices also violates the FTC Act. Today’s action also follows the Administration’s recent Executive Order on Ticketing , which includes a directive for the FTC to “take appropriate action . . . to ensure price transparency at all stages of the ticket-purchase process, including the secondary ticketing market.” According to the Commission’s complaint , in mid-May 2025—after the Rule went into effect—StubHub advertised its ticket prices without disclosing the full price consumers would actually pay by failing to include mandatory fees and to disclose the total price everywhere it displayed prices. Specifically, the FTC alleges StubHub failed to provide the total price for tickets—including high-demand National Football League tickets in the lead-up to when the NFL schedule was announced on May 14, 2025—in the first three pricing displays on its website. On the initial two pricing displays, in numerous instances, the advertised price did not include all mandatory fees, and StubHub did not disclose the total price. On the third pricing display, StubHub listed multiple fees and charges but did not disclose the total price. The proposed order settling StubHub’s alleged violations of the FTC Act and the Fees Rule requires the company to pay $10 million, which the company will use to provide monetary relief to eligible consumers through a settlement and consumer redress distribution program. The order also prohibits StubHub from misrepresenting the total price of any good or service; any fee or charge, including its nature, purpose, amount, or refundability, as well as why the fee or charge is being imposed; the final payment amount for any transaction; and any other material fact including those related to refunds or cancellations. The proposed order also prohibits StubHub from: Offering, displaying, or advertising any price of a good or service without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the total price; Failing to disclose the total price more prominently than any other pricing information; Failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose the amount of any fees or charges that have been excluded from the total price and what they are for, as well as the final payment amount—before the consumer agrees to pay for a product or service; and Violating the Commission’s Fees Rule. Within 90 days of the date of the order StubHub must provide redress to two groups of eligible","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"titre":"Instacart to Pay $60 Million in Consumer Refunds to Settle FTC Lawsuit Over Allegations it Engaged in Deceptive Tactics","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/instacart-pay-60-million-consumer-refunds-settle-ftc-lawsuit-over-allegations-it-engaged-deceptive","pubDate":"Fri, 19 Dec 2025 09:48:21 +0100","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","description":"Today, the Federal Trade Commission announced that grocery delivery provider Instacart will pay $60 million in refunds to consumers to settle allegations that the company engaged in numerous unlawful tactics that harmed shoppers and raised the cost of grocery shopping for Americans. Instacart will be required to cease its deceptive practices under a proposed FTC order, and consumers who were charged for Instacart+ without their express informed consent will receive refunds as a result of the settlement. “Instacart misled consumers by advertising free delivery services—and then charging consumers to have groceries delivered—and failing to disclose to consumers that signed up for a free trial that they would be automatically enrolled into its subscription program,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC is focused on monitoring online delivery services to ensure that competitors are transparently competing on price and delivery terms.” The FTC has alleged that Instacart engaged in a variety of deceptive tactics that misled consumers and caused them to pay more in fees, while depriving consumers of refunds. Specifically, the FTC alleges that Instacart: Falsely advertised “free delivery” to consumers on their first order Instacart’s claims of “free delivery” are false because consumers still must pay a mandatory “service fee” to get their groceries delivered. These mandatory service fees add as much as 15% to the order cost and were not clearly disclosed to consumers. Falsely advertised a “100% satisfaction guarantee,” implying that it will provide full refunds when consumers are not fully satisfied Consumers who experience late deliveries or unprofessional service typically are not offered full refunds and instead are given only a small credit that can be used toward a future order. Instacart hid the refund option from the “self-service” menu that consumers use to report problems with their orders, leading many consumers to erroneously believe they could receive only a credit toward a future order rather than a refund. Failed to clearly disclose terms relating to Instacart+ membership enrollment Instacart’s free-trial enrollment process for Instacart+ did not adequately disclose that consumers would be charged for memberships at the end of their trials, nor did it disclose Instacart’s restrictive refund policy. As a result, Instacart has charged many consumers for paid memberships without their express informed consent. Hundreds of thousands of consumers have been charged membership fees without receiving benefits from the membership or getting refunds. Under the terms of the FTC’s proposed settlement order , Instacart will be prohibited from making misrepresentations concerning the costs of delivery services and satisfaction guarantees. Instacart must also clearly and conspicuously disclose the terms and obtain express informed consent for transactions involving subscription models where consumers are automatically charged unless they actively opt out. The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order was 2-0. The FTC filed the proposed order in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. NOTE:  Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court","id":2582987},{"pubDate":"Wed, 17 Dec 2025 09:50:37 +0100","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/ftc-will-require-illusory-systems-return-money-stolen-hackers-implement-information-security-program","titre":"FTC Will Require Illusory Systems to Return Money Stolen by Hackers and Implement an Information Security Program","id":2577895,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against Illusory Systems Inc. for failing to implement adequate data security measures, leading to a major security breach in which hackers stole $186 million from consumers. Under a proposed order settling the FTC’s allegations, Utah-based Illusory, which does business as Nomad, will be required to implement an information security program to address numerous alleged security failures and to return recovered money to affected consumers. “The FTC Act requires companies to take reasonable security measures,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “It’s important that companies live up to their security promises to consumers.” In its complaint , the FTC alleged that Nomad prominently touted its security in its advertising, claiming that it offered “security-first” services. The FTC, however, alleged that the company failed to live up to these promises by failing to: use secure coding practices; implement processes for receiving and addressing vulnerability reports and responding to security incidents; and utilize widely known technologies that might have helped mitigate consumer losses. According to the complaint, in June 2022, Nomad introduced inadequately tested code that included a significant vulnerability. Just over a month later, hackers began exploiting the vulnerability. The FTC alleged that Nomad failed to respond to the attack in time because of its inadequate security and incident response measures, which led to the loss of $186 million. The company was able to recover some money, but consumers lost approximately $100 million. Nomad was warned about the dangers of inadequate testing as well as the need to ensure it had adequate staff and security in place. The company, however, failed to implement basic safety measures that would mitigate consumer losses, the FTC alleged. Under the proposed order , Nomad will be prohibited from making misrepresentations about its security practices. In addition, the company will also be required to: Implement a comprehensive information security program that is designed to protect consumers from theft or other unauthorized access and address the security issues outlined in the FTC’s complaint; Obtain biennial assessments of its information security program by an independent third party and cooperate with the third-party assessor; and Return to consumers money recovered following the security breach that was not already returned to customers. The Commission voted 2-0 to accept the proposed complaint and order for public comment. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments will appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov. NOTE:  The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $51,744. The lead staff attorneys on this matter are M. Hasan Aijaz and Julia Horwitz with the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"id":2044739,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission’s initial findings from its surveillance pricing market study revealed that details like a person’s precise location or browser history can be frequently used to target individual consumers with different prices for the same goods and services. The staff perspective is based on an examination of documents obtained by FTC staff’s 6(b) orders sent to  several companies in July aiming to better understand the shadowy market that third-party intermediaries use to set individualized prices for products and services based on consumers’ characteristics and behaviors, like location, demographics, browsing patterns and shopping history. Staff found that consumer behaviors ranging from mouse movements on a webpage to the type of products that consumers leave unpurchased in an online shopping cart can be tracked and used by retailers to tailor consumer pricing. “Initial staff findings show that retailers frequently use people’s personal information to set targeted, tailored prices for goods and services—from a person's location and demographics, down to their mouse movements on a webpage,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “The FTC should continue to investigate surveillance pricing practices because Americans deserve to know how their private data is being used to set the prices they pay and whether firms are charging different people different prices for the same good or service.” The FTC’s study of the 6(b) documents is still ongoing. The staff perspective is based on an initial analysis of documents provided by Mastercard, Accenture, PROS, Bloomreach, Revionics and McKinsey & Co. Image The FTC’s 6(b) study focuses on intermediary firms, which are the middlemen hired by retailers that can algorithmically tweak and target their prices. Instead of a price or promotion being a static feature of a product, the same product could have a different price or promotion based on a variety of inputs—including consumer-related data and their behaviors and preferences, the location, time, and channels by which a consumer buys the product, according to the perspective. The agency will only release information obtained from a 6(b) study as long as all data has been aggregated or anonymized to protect confidential trade secrets from company respondents, and therefore the staff perspective only includes hypothetical examples of surveillance pricing.  The staff perspective found that some 6(b) respondents can determine individualized and different pricing and discounts based on granular consumer data, like a cosmetics company targeting promotions to specific skin types and skin tones. The perspective also found that the intermediaries the FTC examined can show higher priced products based on consumers’ search and purchase activity. As one hypothetical outlined, a consumer who is profiled as a new parent may intentionally be shown higher priced baby thermometers on the first page of their search results. The FTC staff found that the intermediaries worked with at least 250 clients that sell goods or services ranging from grocery stores to apparel retailers. The FTC found that widespread adoption of this practice may fundamentally upend how consumers buy products and how companies compete. As the FTC continues its work in this area, it is issuing a request for information   today seeking public comment on consumers’ experiences with surveillance pricing. The RFI also asks for comments from businesses about whether surveillance pricing tools can lead to competitors gaining an unfair advantage, and whether gig workers or employees have been impacted by the use of surveillance pricing to determine their compensation. Comments are due by April 17. The Commission voted 3-2 to allow staff to issue the report. Commissioners Andrew Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak issued a dissenting statement related to the release of the initial research summaries. The FTC has additional resources on the interim","source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués","pubDate":"Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:51:48 +0200","titre":"FTC Surveillance Pricing Study Indicates Wide Range of Personal Data Used to Set Individualized Consumer Prices","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-surveillance-pricing-study-indicates-wide-range-personal-data-used-set-individualized-consumer"}]