[{"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","pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 14:08:41 +0200","titre":"Sign of the times? Protecting your company from B2B deception","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/12/sign-times-protecting-your-company-b2b-deception"},{"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","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,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"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","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 08:05:50 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","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","id":3201052},{"pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:23 +0200","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","id":3199073,"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.","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"titre":"First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2025/09/first-inform-consumers-act-enforcement-case-filed-against-online-marketplace-temu","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:45 +0200","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","id":3198178,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"pubDate":"Thu, 01 Oct 2026 08:11:55 +0200","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","id":3189423,"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","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"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","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","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"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/04/stubhub-refunding-10-million-fees-consumers-after-deceptive-ticket-pricing","titre":"StubHub Refunding $10 Million in Fees to Consumers After Deceptive Ticket Pricing","pubDate":"Fri, 10 Apr 2026 08:08:44 +0200","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","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","id":2818173},{"pubDate":"Fri, 19 Dec 2025 09:48:21 +0100","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","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","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"},{"pubDate":"Thu, 07 Aug 2025 09:48:21 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/08/ftc-challenges-anticompetitive-medical-device-deal","titre":"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"}]