[{"pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 14:08:41 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/12/sign-times-protecting-your-company-b2b-deception","titre":"Sign of the times? Protecting your company from B2B deception","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3204242,"description":"Sign of the times? Protecting your company from B2B deception lfair December 9, 2019 | 2:09PM Sign of the times? Protecting your company from B2B deception By Lesley Fair They may look like invoices sent to business owners for posters they may need to display in the workplace. But we think of them as un voices – deceptively worded solicitations that tried to sell companies posters that are readily available for free. A law enforcement action just settled by the FTC and Florida Attorney General offers tips on protecting your business from this form of B2B deception. According to the FTC and AG, four defendants with ties to Texas and Florida – Starwood Consulting, Starwood Capital, Corporate Poster Supply, and Thomas Henry Fred, Jr. – sent letters to businesses across the country with the goal of tricking them into paying $84 for posters about labor practices. To perfect their pitch, the letters had the look of invoices from government agencies or other authorities and warned recipients that they had two choices: 1) buy the $84 posters; or 2) face hefty fines. In fact, posters similar to the ones in question were available for free from relevant government agencies. But according to the lawsuit, many businesses forked over $84 under the misimpression that they had to buy them from the defendants. The proposed settlement in the case includes provisions to prevent the defendants from using similar tactics to injure consumers in the future, including a ban on unsolicited direct mail. Based on the defendants’ financial condition, the $6 million judgment will be partially suspended upon the payment of $1.2 million. What can other businesses do to protect themselves from B2B deception? What’s your sign? Investigate first. If you think you may need to post signs, check with the relevant government agency. But don’t use a phone number or URL listed in a solicitation you get in the mail. Do your research and go to the legitimate .gov website for more information. Consider free options. It’s true that certain agencies may require businesses to display signs on the premises about subjects like labor practices. But if a poster is required, most likely it’s available for free from the agency’s website. One helpful resource is the Department of Labor’s FirstStep Poster Advisor , which walks businesses through industry-specific posters required by that agency and provides the signs at no charge to employers. You can order them online, call the agency toll-free for copies, or even download them directly and print them out. Why pay for something your business can get for free? Alert colleagues in the business community . Are you active in a trade association or local business group? Enlist them to educate members about similar solicitations and other forms of B2B deception, including bogus office supply invoices and imposter phone calls that claim your company will be shut down if you don’t pay an immediate fee. Read the FTC brochure Scams and Your Small Business (also available in Spanish ) for tips on spotting B2B"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/10/ftc-sues-american-immigration-center-claiming-false-government-affiliation","titre":"FTC sues American Immigration Center for claiming false government affiliation","pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 08:06:59 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"FTC sues American Immigration Center for claiming false government affiliation lfair October 16, 2018 | 12:16PM FTC sues American Immigration Center for claiming false government affiliation By Lesley Fair When the FTC warns consumers about government imposter scams, we’re usually referring to bogus calls that falsely claim to come from the IRS or some other official office. But as a case just announced by the FTC demonstrates, that’s not the only kind of false government affiliation that can deceive consumers. A $2.2 million settlement with American Immigration Center reminds other businesses of the dangers of conveying a misleading connection to a government agency. When consumers wanted to renew their green cards or apply for naturalization, where did they go? Online, of course, where they input terms like “USCIS,” “INS,” or “US Immigration” to search for the proper government site. According to the FTC, that’s how they ran across results with tag lines like “USCIS Forms – Easy Online Forms for Green Card & Citizenship.” A click took them to sites with the outward appearance of official government webpages. First, there were the URLs – usimmigration.us, uscitizenship.info, etc. Then there was the red, white, and blue color scheme, the Statue of Liberty, passports, and pictures of then-President Obama. What’s more, people looking for, say, Green Card Renewal Form I-90, saw links with the exact name of the relevant document. According to the FTC, people paid between $120 to $300 and input a substantial amount of personal information, all under the impression they were filing documents directly with a government agency. Except that they weren’t. Despite the appearance of those pages, consumers were actually on one of many commercial sites the defendants used to sell their “software wizard” to fill out government immigration forms. And the money consumers paid didn’t go toward government filing fees. It went straight into the defendants’ pockets. In addition to the $2.2 million judgment, the defendants have agreed to clearly disclose that: 1) their sites aren’t affiliated with the government; 2) people must separately file immigration applications with the appropriate government agency; and 3) people must separately pay applicable filing fees to the government. The proposed order also bars the defendants – principal Cesare Alessandrini and Forms Direct, Inc., doing business as American Immigration Center – from stating or implying any affiliation with the government. What’s the message for other companies? Avoid an affiliation conflation. Look at your ads and websites from the point of view of your target audience. Could prospective customers be left with the misimpression that your company has an affiliation with a government agency? Steer clear of any purported connection to a local, state, or federal government office. Consider the big picture. The complaint in this case cited the words the defendants used to convey claims to consumers, as well as what their websites looked like. That’s because, according to the FTC Deception Policy Statement , “The Commission will evaluate the entire advertisement, transaction, or course of dealing in determining how reasonable consumers are likely to respond.” That specifically includes visual imagery and the omission of material information. Wise companies bear in mind the FTC’s long-established “net impression” standard and exercise caution in drafting their copy, selecting graphics, and choosing what they say – and what they don’t say – to consumers.","id":3203252},{"pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 08:06:58 +0200","titre":"Joint letters take new steps to stop illegal Coronavirus robocalls","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/04/joint-letters-take-new-steps-stop-illegal-coronavirus-robocalls","id":3203246,"description":"Joint letters take new steps to stop illegal Coronavirus robocalls lfair April 3, 2020 | 1:57PM Joint letters take new steps to stop illegal Coronavirus robocalls By Lesley Fair Consumers hate illegal robocalls. And as the thousands of reports pouring into the FTC indicate, they also hate robocalls that exploit concerns about Coronavirus. In recent months, the FTC has taken innovative steps to take on not only illegal robocallers, but also companies that “assist and facilitate” their conduct. Just last week, FTC staff sent warning letters to nine businesses that provide Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services or other assistance to some of the entities that may be behind the onslaught of bogus COVID-19 calls. Additional letters just went out that reflect unprecedented actions in the fight against fraud. Warning letters were sent to three VoIP providers: SIPJoin, Connexum, and VoIP Terminator d/b/a BLMarketing. According to the letters, investigations have revealed that these companies transmitted calls offering fraudulent COVID-19 home testing kits or claiming that HVAC cleaning services will help fight the virus. But two things are different from last week’s warning letters. First, these letters were signed by the FTC and the FCC. The other interesting development comes in the form of a new strategy aimed at muting the dissonant ring of illegal robocalls. As the letters make clear, the three companies that received the warnings have 48 hours to stop routing or transmitting harmful robocall traffic from their clients making those claims or they will face an unprecedented “or else.” If the three companies don’t comply, the FCC will authorize all other U.S. voice providers to block all calls from them and take all steps that may be needed to prevent further transmission of unlawful calls from those companies. The agencies added that they will evaluate whether further action is warranted against the recipients of the letters. An interesting aspect of that “or else” message relates to another letter sent by the two agencies – this one to telecommunications trade association USTelecom. The letter opens with a note of thanks to USTelecom’s Industry Traceback Group for promptly identifying fraudulent COVID-19 robocalls and lists companies and providers that appear to be responsible for illegal calls – businesses the Industry Traceback Group helped to name. The letter also lets USTelecom know that if the three companies don’t comply, the FCC will authorize U.S. providers to block all calls from those companies and to take steps to prevent further transmission of unlawful calls from them. The letter added, “[W]e encourage and expect providers to take an active role in managing their networks and client relationships to protect consumers from harmful, illegal robocalls and spoofed calls,” and again acknowledged the work of Industry Traceback Group, describing it as “essential to combating the deluge of unlawful robocalls and protecting consumers.” Joint action by the FTC and FCC demonstrates just how seriously the agencies take the scourge of Coronavirus robocalls, but the letters also show that other companies have a critical role to play in the ongoing fight. No self-respecting member of the voice service industry – or any other business – should want anything to do with scammers out to exploit Americans during a time of national crisis.","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3201052,"description":"First FTC ROSCA case challenges bogus BOGO and \"free\" claims wfg-adm109 October 21, 2014 | 12:02PM First FTC ROSCA case challenges bogus BOGO and \"free\" claims By Lesley Fair It’s called ROSCA – the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act – and it prohibits marketers from charging consumers for an online transaction unless the marketer has clearly disclosed all material terms of the deal and received the consumer’s express informed consent. Your e-commerce clients will want to know about the FTC’s first ROSCA case , filed recently in Nevada. According to the lawsuit, Health Formulas, LLC and a tangle of related California- and Nevada-based companies and individuals – consumers may know them as Simple Pure Nutrition – pitched a variety of products for weight loss, muscle building, virility, and skin care. The defendants advertised diet supplements like Pure Green Coffee Bean Plus and RKG Extreme as a shortcut to drop the pounds: “Burn fat without diet or exercise,” “Extreme weight loss!” “Shed pounds fast!” “Super concentrated double fat burning,” etc. Among the defendants’ more colorful business names: Weight Loss Dojo, Longhorn Marketing (sorry, Texas fans), Black Bull, and Unleash the Thunder. But unsubstantiated weight loss claims were just the start. The FTC says the defendants lured people in with bogus promises of a “free” trial or deceptive buy-one-get-one (BOGO) offers. Then they tricked consumers into giving their credit or debit card information with the false implication that consumers had to “just pay shipping.”   Digits in hand, the defendants really went to town, allegedly signing consumers up without their authorization for a negative option program that billed their accounts over and over again, to the monthly tune of between $60 and $210. The FTC says the defendants violated ROSCA by using a negative option feature without providing clear and conspicuous disclosures, getting the consumer’s express informed consent, and offering a simple mechanism for stopping the recurring charges. The FTC’s complaint also cites the defendants’ hard-to-find and hard-to-understand fine-print “terms and conditions,” which consumers could reach only by scrolling through the equivalent of two printed pages and clicking on an obscure hyperlink. Assuming they found it – and that’s a big if – the typical “terms and conditions” document was 10 pages long. On some websites, consumers had to scroll down the payment page to see further fine-print disclosures about the cost of the products. The first sentence reiterated what consumers generally understood (“You must pay a shipping and handling fee of $4.95 for us to send you a full 30 day supply of Garcinia Cambogia Extract”) but it wasn’t until the middle of the paragraph that the defendants mentioned that the trial period lasts only 14 days, that it began when the items were shipped (not delivered), and that consumers would be charged after that. Other websites didn’t even include that information. According to the lawsuit, consumers who attempted to take the defendants up on their money-back guarantee were met with a series of undisclosed roadblocks. In addition to the ROSCA counts, the FTC says the defendants’ practices violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act by debiting consumers’ accounts on a recurring basis without their prior written authorization. What’s more, the complaint charges that the defendants continued to call people after being told to cut it out, in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule’s entity-specific Do Not Call provisions. The FTC says they also violated the TSR through a series of deceptive upsells. A federal judge has entered a temporary restraining order and the FTC is seeking to put a permanent stop to the defendants’ illegal practices. If your clients have ROSCA questions, the","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 08:05:50 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/10/first-ftc-rosca-case-challenges-bogus-bogo-free-claims","titre":"First FTC ROSCA case challenges bogus BOGO and \"free\" claims"},{"description":"Nixing the Fix: Warranties, Mag-Moss, and restrictions on repairs lfair March 18, 2019 | 10:24AM Nixing the Fix: Warranties, Mag-Moss, and restrictions on repairs By Lesley Fair First, the bad news: That nifty purchase needs a repair. Now the good news for consumers: It’s still under warranty. But where can they go to get it fixed? Can the manufacturer restrict a consumer’s ability to go to the independent repair shop of their choice? Can the manufacturer use glue, non-standard screws, and proprietary diagnostic software that make it difficult for independent repair shops to fix things? Do limitations like these affect consumers’ rights under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ? That’s the topic of Nixing the Fix: A Workshop on Repair Restrictions , an FTC event scheduled for July 16, 2019 . Enforced by the FTC, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act helps consumers make informed buying decisions and gives them access to remedies if the widget starts to fidget during the warranty period. One key consumer protection under Mag-Moss is that the law prohibits manufacturers from conditioning warranty coverage on the use of particular products or services. Here are some of the questions FTC staff intends to ask at Nixing the Fix : What’s the interplay between repair restrictions and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act’s anti-tying provision, which establishes that manufacturers can’t condition coverage on the use of parts or services identified by brand, trade, or corporate name? Do repair restrictions affect the market for extended warranties and service agreements? What types of restrictions are consumers running into when they try to get their stuff repaired? Are manufacturers’ restrictions having an impact on small fix-it businesses? Are manufacturers using software that may render products obsolete or unfixable if consumers engage in DIY or go to a local repair shop? Are repair restrictions necessary to reduce the risk of physical injury or to protect manufacturers from liability for products improperly repaired by others? Do consumers understand the effects of repair restrictions? We’re also looking for empirical research and data about the prevalence and impact of manufacturers’ repair restrictions. For example, what can you tell us about code that disables products that have been repaired by someone other than the manufacturer, product designs that make third-party repairs difficult (like attaching batteries with glue only the manufacturer can remove), contractual post-sale or licensing restrictions, or proprietary diagnostic software and replacement parts? Please send us your research and data by April 30, 2019. Do you have suggestions about possible panelists? Email us at nixingthefix@ftc.gov . Nixing the Fix will take place on July 16th at the FTC’s Constitution Center conference facility, 400 7th Street, S.W., in Washington, DC. It’s free and open to the public. You can file public comments online and we’ll keep the record open until September 16, 2019. Follow the Business Blog for more information about the agenda and for watch-the-webcast instructions.","id":3199073,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","titre":"Nixing the Fix: Warranties, Mag-Moss, and restrictions on repairs","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/03/nixing-fix-warranties-mag-moss-restrictions-repairs","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:23 +0200"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"First Consumer Review Fairness case takes on promoter’s “big bucks on Amazon” claim lfair August 6, 2018 | 11:11AM First Consumer Review Fairness case takes on promoter’s “big bucks on Amazon” claim By Lesley Fair T he marketers behind a purported money-making promotion called Sellers Playbook appear to have skipped the chapter about complying with federal and state consumer protection laws. That’s the allegation in a complaint filed by the FTC and the Minnesota Attorney General . In addition, it’s the FTC’s first case charg ing violations of the Consumer Review Fairness Act. The roots of the allegations go back to another venture sued by the FTC earlier this year: FBA Stores, also known as Amazing Wealth System and Amazon Wealth Systems. The defendants in that case ran online ads and in-person workshops that claimed to reveal the secret s of making major money on Amazon. But few, if any, of the consumers who forked over thousands of dollars and implemented their “plug-and-play systems” earn ed the kind of cash the defendants claimed. Which brings us to Sellers Playbook, Exposure Marketing, Jessie Conners Tieva, and Matthew Tieva – Minnesota-based defendants charged with pitching the same kind of “secrets” to making big bucks on Amazon . According to the just-filed lawsuit , the striking similarities should come as no surprise. That ’s because defendant Jessie Tieva was a regular speaker at Amazing Wealth Systems’ workshops. How successful was she in getting consumers to sign up? The complaint charges that Ms. Tieva and her team generated more than $3.4 million in sales for Amazing Wealth Systems. And let’s be clear: We’re not talking about $3.4 million in sales by consumers who successfully implemented the system. We mean $3.4 million that consumers shelled out to the operators of Amazing Wealth Systems for which Tieva was paid a handsome commission. The complaint alleges that the new Sellers Playbook venture is, in effect, a copycat of the now-defunct Amazing Wealth Systems operation. The earning claims certainly have a familiar ring to them. Here’s how Sellers Playbook touted their “opportunity”: “Holy cow, guys. That’s when you start seeing the returns of what we want you to have, $20,000 a month,” “Potential Net Profit: $1,287,463.38,” “Starting with $1000...1 year later over $210,000,” and “How many of you would like to learn how to turn a $5- to $10,000 investment into a $25- to a $1.2 million return with your investment? Yeah. And you’re going to learn those strategies before you leave here today. There are a few other things Amazon Wealth Systems and Sellers Playbook have in common: 1) Neither company has any affiliation with Amazon; and 2) Both companies charged consumers hundreds of dollars – or even hefty five-figure fees – to sign up. Of course, few consumers make the kind of earnings the defendants claimed. According to the complaint, many of the webpages promoting Sellers Playbook contained an inconspicuous earnings disclaimer in grey near the bottom of the page. What’s more, at a live event, the defendants briefly displayed this slide, which one of the presenters downplayed with this statement: “That’s why they have us do this again. It makes the lawyers happy, disclaimers. But you got to do your part. Money’s not going to fall from the sky. But as long as you do a part, it’s going to happen.” T he complaint challenges the defendants’ earning claims as false or unsubstantiated under FTC law and the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act. What’s more, the lawsuit alleges multiple violations of the FTC’s Business Opportunity Rule . The FTC and the AG also charge that provisions in the defendants’ form contracts try to restrict consumers’ ability to post reviews of their products, services, or conduct , in violation of the Consumer Review Fairness","id":3199075,"titre":"First Consumer Review Fairness case takes on promoter’s “big bucks on Amazon” claim","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/08/first-consumer-review-fairness-case-takes-promoters-big-bucks-amazon-claim","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:23 +0200"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/06/two-aisle-ftcs-thats-ticket-workshop","titre":"Two on the aisle for FTC’s “That’s the Ticket” workshop","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:45 +0200","description":"Two on the aisle for FTC’s “That’s the Ticket” workshop lfair June 6, 2019 | 10:40AM Two on the aisle for FTC’s “That’s the Ticket” workshop By Lesley Fair Humphrey Bogart said it in “The African Queen” and it was a catchphrase popularized by Jon Lovitz on “Saturday Night Live.” But to the FTC, That’s the Ticket is the name of a June 11, 2019, workshop to explore consumer protection issues related to online ticket sales – and the agenda is out now. Consumers who try to buy tickets online to a concert, theatrical performance, or sporting event have often expressed frustration with the process. That’s the Ticket will bring together advocates, industry members, academics, and law enforcers to explore the topic from the consumer’s perspective. FTC Commissioner Slaughter will open the event at 9:30 ET. Next on the agenda: Professor Eric Budish from the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, who will share his insights into the issues. The first panel will explore Bots and the BOTS Act . Passed in 2016, the Better Online Ticket Sales Act makes it illegal to “circumvent a security measure, access control system, or other technological control or measure on an Internet website or online service that is used by the ticket issuer to enforce posted event ticket purchasing limits or to maintain the integrity of posted online ticket purchasing order rules.” The next panel will address Other Consumer Protection Issues Around Ticket Availability . After a mid-day break, the topic will turn to The Adequacy of Ticket Price and Fee Disclosures . Do consumers have accurate information about how much they’ll be charged? The last panel of the afternoon will consider Consumer Confusion: What and From Whom Am I Buying? Do buyers have a clear picture of what they’re getting and the identity of the seller? Mary Engle, Director of the FTC’s Division of Advertising Practices, will offer closing remarks. Ironically enough, you don’t need a ticket to attend That’s the Ticket , which will take place on June 11th at the FTC’s Constitution Center conference facility, 400 7th Street, S.W., in Washington, DC. The event is free and open to the public or you can watch via webcast, which will go live moments before the 9:30 ET starting time on the That’s the Ticket event page. We’ll also live tweet using the hashtag #FTCticket.    ","id":3198174,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"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","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"},{"titre":"Stick with Security: Require secure passwords and authentication","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/08/stick-security-require-secure-passwords-authentication","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:07:08 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","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","id":3197409},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"FTC wants your feedback about proposed Made in USA Rule lfair June 22, 2020 | 4:04PM FTC wants your feedback about proposed Made in USA Rule By Lesley Fair If your clients are interested in Made in USA issues – and you know they are – there are two developments at the FTC they need to know about. First, the FTC just announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for a Made in USA Labeling Rule . You’ll want to read the notice in detail, but the proposed Rule would apply to labels on products that make unqualified Made in USA claims. (In FTC parlance, an “unqualified” claim is a broad representation made without limitations.) The proposed Rule would incorporate established guidance already set forth in FTC decisions and orders and in the agency’s 1997 Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims . Consistent with that guidance, the proposed Rule would prohibit marketers from making unqualified MUSA claims on labels unless: Final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States; All significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States; and All or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States. The proposed Rule wouldn’t change or affect any other existing federal or state law or regulation relating to country-of-origin labels, but it suggests one notable modification: The proposed Rule would allow the FTC to seek civil penalties for violations. Once the proposed Rule is published in the Federal Register, we invite you to file a public comment either online or on paper. (Thanks for following the instructions for submitting comments included in the notice of proposed rulemaking.) Development #2 is that the FTC just issued a staff report on last fall’s Made in USA workshop convened to consider consumer perception of Made in USA claims and to discuss the agency’s Made in USA enforcement program. Dive into the report for the details, but according to the one panelist who provided survey evidence on how consumers understand Made in USA claims, a 2013 study suggests that almost 3 in 5 Americans agree that “Made in America” means that all parts of a product, including any natural resources it contains, originated in the United States. According to that same study, one third of consumers believe that 100% of a product must originate in a country for it to be called “made” in that country. The report cites those statistics in support of long-standing guidance in the FTC’s Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims that at least a significant minority of consumers are likely to be deceived by an unqualified Made in USA claim for a product incorporating more than a trivial amount of foreign content.","id":3197412,"titre":"FTC wants your feedback about proposed Made in USA Rule","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/06/ftc-wants-your-feedback-about-proposed-made-usa-rule","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:07:08 +0200"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Buckle up for a two-lane look at car buying lfair July 30, 2020 | 1:04PM Buckle up for a two-lane look at car buying By Lesley Fair It’s one of the biggest purchases people make, but two new FTC staff reports examine some common pitfalls when consumers are in the market for a car. Buckle down and read the Bureau of Consumer Protection’s Buckle Up: Navigating Auto Sales and Financing , which focuses on the challenges buyers face in getting accurate, understandable information when shopping for a vehicle. Not in the auto business? Not so fast. The deep-dive analysis of  Buckle Up  and an accompanying report by BCP staff and the Bureau of Economics – The Auto Buyer Study: Lessons From In-Depth Consumer Interviews And Related Research  – offer insights into the perception and behavior of consumers in the study that can apply to other industries. The FTC’s interest in auto-related transactions goes back decades. (Check out Volume 1 of Federal Trade Commission Decisions for a 1919 case regarding deception in the sale of auto parts.) The FTC has brought law enforcement actions challenging illegal practices, held workshops and roundtables to hear from consumer groups and industry members, and educated buyers and sellers about their rights and responsibilities. One notable feature about the two new reports is that FTC staff went straight to the source and based their views, in part, on detailed interviews with consumers about their experiences when buying and financing a vehicle. You’ll want to read Buckle Up from bumper to bumper, but one key finding is that consumers may be unaware of key terms in sales and financing contracts. One reason may be the extent to which the negotiations process focuses primarily on the monthly payment. That approach can leave consumers in the dark about other important – sometimes even more important – financial variables like the down payment, the length of financing, the total sales price, and the annual percentage rate. So let’s say the consumer has decided on a vehicle and has come to an agreement on the price. All done? Consumers may think the checkered flag is in sight, but for the dealership, negotiations have just begun. First, as the report suggests, “price” can be an elusive concept in the context of car buying. Does it mean sticker price, out-the-door price, total sales price, or something else? Furthermore, it’s often in a last-lap meeting in the financing office that dealers raise the issue of add-ons – purchases like extended warranties, service plans, credit insurance, GAP policies, window etching, etc., that can add substantially to what consumers walking into the office thought the price was. Add-ons also may have limits or conditions and may not cover what consumers expect. The staff report suggests several reasons why add-ons were the single greatest area of confusion for consumers who participated in the study. According to the report, the talk turned to add-ons only after long hours (or days or weeks) of negotiations left consumers feeling both pressured to close the deal and confused by the details. Even the very nature of the products left many consumers bewildered. Are these add-ons mandatory? Are they free? Is the cost included in what consumers perceive as the already agreed-upon price? Does the dealership’s practice of bundling – offering add-ons as a package – mean buyers can’t pick and choose the add-ons they want? What about consumers’ opportunity to review the purchase and financing paperwork? As the report notes, “[T]he length of the auto-buying process, the amount of paperwork involved, and the technical industry jargon often coalesce to make meaningful review and engagement a challenging task.” Participants in the study cited the exhausting negotiation process, a sense of feeling rushed at the end, information overload that left some of them “overwhelmed,” and the difficulty of reviewing documents on a tablet or other","id":3194915,"titre":"Buckle up for a two-lane look at car buying","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/07/buckle-two-lane-look-car-buying","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:38 +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","titre":"Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/06/practice-fusion-case-suggests-6-health-privacy-pointers"},{"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,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","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"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":3127461,"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","pubDate":"Tue, 01 Sep 2026 08:10:10 +0200","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"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":3120376,"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","pubDate":"Fri, 28 Aug 2026 08:07:59 +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":"Thu, 27 Aug 2026 08:03:44 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/08/ftc-announces-2027-telemarketer-fees-access-national-do-not-call-registry","titre":"FTC Announces 2027 Telemarketer Fees to Access the National Do Not Call Registry","id":3118417,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission today announced new fees for telemarketers to access phone numbers on the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry for Fiscal Year 2027 which begins on October 1, 2026. All telemarketers calling consumers in the United States are required to download the numbers on the National DNC Registry to ensure they do not call consumers who have registered their phone numbers. The first five area codes are free to download, and organizations that are exempt, such as some charities and political callers, may obtain the entire list for free. Telemarketers must subscribe each year for access to the Registry numbers. The cost of accessing a single area code in the registry will be $85 in FY 2027, which is an increase of $3 from FY 2026. The maximum charge to any single entity for accessing all area codes nationwide will be $23,425 (up from $22,626 in FY 2026). The fee for accessing an additional area code for a half year will increase to $43 in FY 2027 from $41 in FY 2026. The Commission vote authorizing publication of the Federal Register notice announcing the new fees was 2-0. Note:  The new fees will go into effect on October 1,","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"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"},{"pubDate":"Fri, 06 Feb 2026 09:48:14 +0100","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/02/ftc-sending-nearly-23-million-consumers-who-invested-deceptive-sanctuary-belize-kanantik-real-estate","titre":"FTC is Sending Nearly $23 Million to Consumers Who Invested in the Deceptive Sanctuary Belize and Kanantik Real Estate Development Schemes","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":2679350,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission is returning nearly $23 million to consumers nationwide who bought deceptively marketed overseas real estate lots in what the sellers pitched as Sanctuary Belize, a supposed luxury development in southern, coastal Belize, as well as its nearby sister development, Kanantik. The FTC is mailing 1,659 checks to defrauded investors. The average amount of each check for Sanctuary Belize consumers is $16,462 and the average amount of each check for Kanantik consumers is $6,346.39. Today’s announcement represents the second mailing to consumers who invested in the Sanctuary Belize scheme, with approximately  $10 million distributed previously . The first round of checks was sent only to consumers who bought property within Sanctuary Belize. Today’s checks are going to both Sanctuary Belize investors, as well as consumers who invested in Kanantik, a related development owned and operated by some of the Sanctuary Belize defendants, and other areas covered by the court relief in this case. In November 2018, the FTC filed a complaint charging that Andris Pukke, a prior FTC defendant, and several other corporate and individual defendants deceived consumers who invested in Sanctuary Belize by promising they were investing in a luxury development and resort. The defendants, however, failed to deliver on the promised amenities, and consumers who invested in Sanctuary property lost money and could not resell their lots. Following a trial in 2020, a federal court found that the defendants, who took in more than $100 million, duped consumers into buying Sanctuary Belize lots by falsely claiming it would be a safe investment, that the development would include luxury amenities and be completed soon, and that consumers could resell their lots. The defendants appealed,  but the Court of Appeals confirmed the deceptive scheme and the monetary judgment against Pukke and his associates, Peter Baker and John Usher. The District Court  ordered the receiver to send an initial round of payments , with the money coming from previous settlements. As part of a second round of payments, the Commission is sending a total of $22,865,008.34 to consumers. Checks totaling $20,028,170.25 are being sent to 1,202 claim applicants who invested in properties within Sanctuary Belize, and checks totaling $2,836,838.09 are being sent to 447 claim applicants who invested in properties in the Kanantik and other covered development areas. Consumers who receive checks in this second distribution should cash them within 60 days, as indicated on the check. Consumers with questions about their payments should email the redress administrator, Rust Consulting, which is being supported by Ankura Consulting Group, LLC, at Payment@SanctuaryBelizeRedress.com . Consumers with other questions about the Sanctuary Belize receivership can contact  info@sanctuarybelizereceivership.com . The application process for requesting a payment is closed, and the receiver is no longer accepting applications from consumers. Consumers can also visit the receivership website at  www.SanctuaryBelizeReceivership.com to find other resources such as"},{"pubDate":"Fri, 19 Dec 2025 09:48:21 +0100","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","titre":"Instacart to Pay $60 Million in Consumer Refunds to Settle FTC Lawsuit Over Allegations it Engaged in Deceptive Tactics","id":2582987,"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","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"pubDate":"Thu, 07 Aug 2025 09:48:21 +0200","titre":"FTC Challenges Anticompetitive Medical Device Deal","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/08/ftc-challenges-anticompetitive-medical-device-deal","id":2298968,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission today moved to block medical device supplier Edwards Lifesciences Corp.’s (Edwards) proposed acquisition of JenaValve Technology, Inc. (JenaValve) due to concerns that the acquisition would limit patient access to lifesaving medical devices used to treat a potentially fatal heart condition. The FTC alleges that over the span of two days in July 2024, Edwards executed agreements to acquire both JenaValve and JC Medical, the two leading companies competing to bring to market transcatheter aortic valve replacement devices that treat a heart condition called aortic regurgitation (TAVR-AR devices). Edwards closed its acquisition of JC Medical in August 2024, and its proposed $945 million acquisition of JenaValve would combine the only two companies with ongoing clinical trials in the United States for a TAVR-AR device. The deal threatens to reduce competition in the TAVR-AR market, likely resulting in reduced innovation, diminished product quality, and potentially increased prices for consumers, according to the complaint. “ Edwards’ attempt to buy the U.S. market for TAVR-AR devices would eliminate the head-to-head competition that has spurred innovation for lifesaving artificial heart valves,” said Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “The FTC is taking action to stop this anticompetitive deal and ensure that JenaValve and Edwards’ JC Medical subsidiary continue competing to innovate, expand treatment eligibility, and keep down costs. Americans deserve all the benefits that come from competition between medical device makers, just as they do in other markets.” More than 8 million Americans suffer from aortic regurgitation, which occurs when the heart’s aortic valve does not close properly, causing blood to backflow into the heart. Currently, surgical valve replacement via open heart surgery is the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved procedure to treat aortic regurgitation, and TAVR-AR devices offer a new and less invasive way to treat the condition. JenaValve is poised to become the first company to bring a TAVR-AR device, called Trilogy, to the commercial market in the United States. If Edwards acquires JenaValve, Edwards would gain control over the two most advanced TAVR-AR devices, the FTC complaint alleges. FDA approval or commercialization of any other TAVR-AR device in the United States by another company, aside from Edwards and JenaValve, is not expected for the foreseeable future. Direct head-to-head competition between Edwards, through its now-subsidiary JC Medical, and JenaValve has driven the two companies to accelerate the development of their TAVR-AR devices, the FTC’s complaint alleges. Ultimately, patients will benefit if JenaValve and Edwards continue to directly compete to complete their separate TAVR-AR device clinical trials, product improvements, and commercialization plans. The competition concerns caused by Edwards’ dual acquisition strategy are predicated on Edwards owning both JenaValve and JC Medical simultaneously, but Edwards has elected to attempt to buy JenaValve while retaining its ownership of JC Medical. Edwards has not been willing to engage on divesting JC Medical to resolve the competition concerns with the proposed JenaValve acquisition, according to the complaint. The Commission vote to issue an administrative complaint and authorize staff to seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction was 3-0. The federal court complaint and request for preliminary relief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to halt the transaction pending an administrative proceeding. 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. The issuance of the administrative complaint marks the beginning of a proceeding in which the allegations will be tried in a formal","source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués"}]