[{"id":3244415,"description":"Last week, the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) released its updated Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Courts. Credit is due to the CJC for its ongoing thoughtful engagement on this important topic. Similarly, several Quebec courts released their own guidelines on judicial AI use last month. This column looks at one feature that both sets of guidelines have in common: guidance for judges on using AI tools to summarize material filed with the court, including evidence and submissions. This is far from the only aspect of the CJC and Quebec guidelines worthy of discussion, but it is . . . [more] The post Summarize This? appeared first on Slaw","source":"Slaw","pubDate":"Tue, 27 Oct 2026 13:53:40 +0100","url":"https://www.slaw.ca/2026/10/27/summarize-this/","titre":"Summarize This?"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3201874,"description":"$88 million back for AT&T customers: An inside look at a refund program lfair December 8, 2016 | 11:15AM $88 million back for AT&T customers: An inside look at a refund program By Lesley Fair Chances are that you or someone you know will be among 2.7 million AT&T Mobility customers who will be getting a refund soon. The FTC is returning a total of $88 million to people who were billed for premium text message services they didn’t authorize. But even if the settlement doesn’t directly benefit you as a consumer, it offers insights for business people about the steps the FTC takes to get refunds back to consumers – and the seriousness with which we approach that stewardship role. The FTC settlement was part of a joint action with the FCC and Attorneys General from all 50 states and the District of Columbia to crack down on mobile cramming. The FTC alleged that third parties placed unauthorized charges for trivia, horoscopes, celebrity tidbits, etc., on the phone bills of AT&T customers with AT&T pocketing a sizeable chunk of the take – 35% or more. A portion of the $105 million was paid in the form of penalties to the states and the FCC. The remaining funds – initially, $80 million – were earmarked for a consumer refund program administered by the FTC. But a program of that size isn’t just a matter of cutting a quick check. There are required procedures to make sure the money is returned to eligible consumers. Step #1: The FTC hired a refund administrator to manage the complicated logistics. During the 6-month period in which consumers could file refund applications, we received more than 5 million claims from AT&T customers. (Some people submitted more than one claim.) Next, the refund administrator went over every single claim to make sure it was valid. The process was painstaking, but it was essential for maintaining the integrity of the refund program. Then came the complicated calculation of how the funds should be distributed. Some good news was that the FTC was able to add more money to the initial $80 million amount through assets recovered in related law enforcement actions against Tatto and Acquinity, third parties that added charges to consumers’ AT&T bills. In addition, the court required that an independent auditor review each step of the process – another important double-check to make sure the i’s are dotted and the t’s crossed. Once the auditor approved the final plan, the refund administrator prepared and printed checks and letters. What’s next?  Current AT&T customers should see a credit on their bill within 75 days. Former AT&T customers will receive a check, the first round of which were mailed today. If you get a check, be sure to cash it within 60 days. (By the way, the FTC never requires people to pay money or turn over their account information to cash refund checks.) Questions? Call the refund administrator at 1-877-819-9692 or visit ftc.gov/att.","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:06 +0200","titre":"$88 million back for AT&T customers: An inside look at a refund program","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/12/88-million-back-att-customers-inside-look-refund-program"},{"pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:06 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/11/setting-debt-parking-brake","titre":"Setting the debt parking brake","id":3201875,"description":"Setting the debt parking brake lfair November 30, 2020 | 12:14PM Setting the debt parking brake By Lesley Fair What are the biggest risks of parking? A dinged door? A bruised bumper? For consumers victimized by the pernicious practice of debt parking, the impact on their financial health can be devastating. And if you’re a debt collector who engages in debt parking, an FTC settlement with Midwest Recovery Systems suggests you could face law enforcement action for violations of the FTC Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Just what is debt parking? It’s the practice of placing purported debts on consumers’ credit reports without first attempting to communicate with the consumer about the debt. Some call it “passive debt collection,” but there’s nothing passive about the injury it can inflict. Consumers often don’t learn about it until a mortgage company, prospective employer, or other decision maker pulls their credit report and spots what appears to be an unpaid debt. With a house, car, or job in the balance, many people feel pressured to pay up – even though they may not actually owe the money. That’s the tactic the FTC says Missouri-based Midwest Recovery Systems and owners Brandon M. Tumber, Kenny W. Conway, and Joseph H. Smith engaged in. According to the lawsuit, since at least 2015, the defendants have reported to credit reporting agencies more than $98 million in bogus or highly questionable debts for payday loans, debts subject to unresolved fraud claims, debts in bankruptcy, debts in the process of being rebilled to consumers’ medical insurance, and even debts people had already paid. The FTC alleges the defendants continued to collect those debts even in the face of billowing red flags about their validity. In fact, when consumers were able to dispute the purported debts, the defendants have regularly concluded that between 80% and 97% of them were either inaccurate or invalid. That’s not surprising, given that many of those debts originated from certain payday lenders and others whom the FTC has sued for their own illegal practices. Here’s an example cited in the complaint of how the defendants used debt parking to help line their pockets with millions in gross revenue. When applying for a mortgage, a consumer was told that an outstanding medical debt of $1,500 had lowered his credit score, which threatened to put the kibosh on buying a house. He contacted the hospital where he supposedly owed the debt, only to be told that he owed just an $80 co-pay. In spite of that, the FTC says the defendants refused to remove the debt and threatened the consumer with a lawsuit if he didn’t pony up. His complaint was one of thousands that Midwest Recovery received. For people who work in the collections field, the pleading in this case merit a careful read. In addition to alleging the defendants made false or unsubstantiated representations in violation of the FTC Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act , the complaint expressly challenges their debt parking tactics as an unfair practice under the FDCPA. The FTC says they also violated the FDCPA by failing to provide validation notices – one of the protections in the statute designed to ensure consumers have the information they need to dispute an invalid debt. Three other counts charge the defendants with violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by furnishing information to credit reporting agencies they knew or had reasonable cause to believe was inaccurate, by failing to conduct reasonable investigations of disputes, and by failing to report the results of those investigations to consumers. The settlement suggests some takeaway tips for others in the collections ecosystem. Consumers’ credit reports are a NO PARKING zone. This is the first FTC case to address debt parking – and thus the first to challenge the practice as unfair under the FDCPA – but the message couldn’t be clearer. Debt collectors that park fake or","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"},{"id":3199077,"description":"FTC recaps consumer complaint data for 2017: Who’s on the list? lfair March 1, 2018 | 5:17PM FTC recaps consumer complaint data for 2017: Who’s on the list? By Lesley Fair Once bitten, twice shy. That fundamental principle of human behavior is why reputable businesses that work hard to earn consumers’ confidence should support the FTC’s ongoing efforts to fight fraud. According to the FTC’s 2017 Consumer Sentinel Data Book , consumers reported losing a total of $905 million to fraud last year. That’s close to a billion bucks people won’t be able to spend on legitimate products and services from credible companies. That figure is up $63 million from last year, although the total number of reports received from consumers is down from 2.98 million in 2016 to 2.68 million in 2017. Topping the list that no industry wants to be on is debt collection, making up 23% of the total number of complaints. But there are two caveats: 1) that number is down from 2016; and 2) the high number of debt collection reports was due in part to reports submitted by a data contributor who collects complaints via a mobile app. Second on the list is identity theft at 14%. The injury to consumers came in two equally unpalatable flavors. Credit card fraud was the most common manifestation. Tax fraud was next, but the glimmer of hope there is that the total number of tax-related identity theft complaints fell by 46%. Winners of the dubious bronze medal were imposter scams , with consumers reporting financial losses of a whopping $328 million. Imposters wear many masks: “I’m with [big-name tech company] and your computer is riddled with viruses,” “Help, Grampa! I’ve been arrested and need bail money,” and “We’re from [government agency] and we’ll arrest you if you don’t pay us today.” Nearly one in five consumers who reported an imposter scam said they lost money to the fraud. For the first time, the Consumer Sentinel Data Book breaks out fraud losses by reported age groups and here’s a result that may surprise you: Consumers in their 20s reported losing money to fraud more often than those over 70. Among 20-somethings who reported fraud, 40% said they lost money. Compare that with the over-70 crowd, only 18% of whom reported a financial loss. But there’s a troubling aspect to that surprising factoid. When older adults did report losing money to a scammer, the loss was much greater. For example, people 80 and older reported median losses of $1,092 compared to $400 for those in their 20s. Wire transfers continue to be scammers’ preferred payment method and in 70% of the complaints we received, the fraudster contacted the consumer by phone. The top states for reporting fraud were Florida, Georgia and Nevada, while Michigan, Florida and California had the most reports about identity theft, per capita. Stats cats tell us that they find our state-by-state data dive helpful, so we’ve created a new webpage to make it easier to evaluate the information. The bottom line for business people: Educate.   Use your status in the community to spread the word to employees, industry colleagues, and friends about the latest forms of fraud. One way to stay in the know: Sign up for scam alerts from the FTC. Cooperate.  If people you know suspect that their identity has been compromised, send them to identitytheft.gov to create a personal recovery plan. (And remember that your company may have a legal obligation to provide identity theft victims and law enforcers with transaction records related to ID theft.) Report.   When you spot a scam, report it to the FTC . We’re talking about fraud directed to consumers and questionable promotions targeting small businesses. Your reports have helped the FTC and other law enforcement agencies put together cases against the con artists behind bogus business directories, office supply flimflams, and other forms of B2B fraud. Consumer Sentinel is an online database available to civil","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:24 +0200","titre":"FTC recaps consumer complaint data for 2017: Who’s on the list?","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/03/ftc-recaps-consumer-complaint-data-2017-whos-list"},{"titre":"Keep FCRA in the foreground when the subject is background screening","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/04/keep-fcra-foreground-when-subject-background-screening","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:46 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Keep FCRA in the foreground when the subject is background screening chundycz April 9, 2014 | 12:13AM Keep FCRA in the foreground when the subject is background screening By Lesley Fair When the talk turns to Big Data, part of the conversation is about all the public information available about people's lives – and how companies market it to prospective employers, landlords, etc.  Two cases just announced by the FTC  serve as a cautionary reminder to members of the industry that what they do may be subject to the long-standing consumer protections of the  Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) .  InfoTrack, an Illinois company, and San Diego-based Instant Checkmate will be paying civil penalties to settle FTC lawsuits that they violated the FCRA.  Is it time for an FCRA refresher at your business? Instant Checkmate marketed its reports as a way for prospective employers and landlords to investigate applicants.  For example, the company advertised that one of the “GOOD REASONS to get instant criminal checks on anyone right now” was to “check out tenants before they rent.”  It also used a Google Ad Words campaign to make sure its site appeared when people searched for background checks on nannies, babysitters, maids, and housekeepers.  What kind of information would buyers get?  Current and previous addresses, birth certificates, arrest histories, and marriage and divorce records, to name just a few examples. InfoTrack offered similar services to employers nationwide, including background screening reports with people’s driving records, education and employment information, criminal histories, and even records from sex offender registries. How does the FCRA come in?  The law defines a “consumer report” as a “communication of any information” by a consumer reporting agency (CRA) that bears on a person’s “credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living” which is used (or expected to be used) as a factor in establishing their eligibility for credit, insurance, employment, or other reasons outlined in the law. According to the FTC, what Instant Checkmate and InfoTrack were doing triggered the FCRA.  For example, companies covered by the law must follow procedures to assure their reports are as accurate as possible, must take steps to see that those using their reports have permissible purposes for accessing them, and must provide required User Notices explaining key protections for consumers.  The law imposes special requirements when CRAs provide reports containing public record information that could have an adverse effect on a person’s ability to get a job.  In that case, the CRA must either: 1) notify the consumer that it’s reporting the information in the public record; or 2) maintain “strict procedures” – that’s the language in the law – designed to ensure the reported public information is complete and up to date. You’ll want to read the complaints for specifics of where the FTC says the companies fell short, but one example cited in the lawsuit against InfoTrack offers an object lesson on why FCRA protections are so important to consumers – and how the consequences can be devastating when companies don’t live up to the law.  According to the FTC, the reports InfoTrack provided to prospective employers included information about whether a job applicant was on the National Sex Offender Registry.  The employer would provide the first and last name and the date of birth to help InfoTrack with its search.  The problem was that before the fall of 2011, no date of birth was available for many names on the Registry.  If InfoTrack’s search found more than one person with the same first and last name, it reported a “possible match” to employers and gave them reports that included several different people with the","id":3198181},{"id":3195790,"description":"Judge orders $13.4 million in contempt action challenging BlueHippo hype lfair May 2, 2016 | 10:52AM Judge orders $13.4 million in contempt action challenging BlueHippo hype By Lesley Fair Animation fans remember the ballet-dancing pink hippos in Fantasia . In Egyptian mythology, the god of disorder was depicted as a red hippo. And many consumers – especially those already in financial distress – were drawn in by national TV and radio ads for BlueHippo, a company that claimed to finance the purchase of computers and other electronics for people with “less than perfect credit, bad credit, no credit.” A $13.4 million ruling by a United States District Judge in an FTC contempt action sends a message to hippos of all hues (and businesses) about the FTC’s commitment to effective order enforcement. In 2008, the FTC sued BlueHippo Funding and BlueHippo Capital for, among other things, not delivering ordered merchandise, failing to make disclosures required by the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, and illegally conditioning the extension of credit on consumers’ “agreement” to repay by preauthorized electronic debit. One common tactic was that BlueHippo said it would deliver the product once the consumer made 13 weekly payments, but then didn’t make good on that promise. The FTC also alleged that in many instances, BlueHippo debited consumers’ accounts without first disclosing that consumers couldn’t get a refund even if they cancelled before delivery. The defendants settled that case , agreeing to pay up to $5 million in redress and to change how they did business in the future. The FTC went back to court in 2009 , alleging that BlueHippo was flouting the terms of the settlement and continuing to engage in illegal practices. The Court granted the FTC’s contempt motion against the corporate defendants and CEO Joseph Rensin, but entered a remedy of only $609,000. The FTC appealed the financial ruling. Arguing that there should be a presumption that consumers relied on the defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, the FTC sought a contempt order of $14 million – the gross sales the defendants generated through their illegal conduct. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled , “We agree with the FTC and join our sister circuits in adopting a presumption of consumer reliance in FTC civil contempt actions.” The appellate court remanded the matter to the trial court to determine “whether the FTC has demonstrated that it is entitled to a presumption of consumer reliance. If so, the court should use defendants’ gross receipts as a baseline for calculating the consumers’ actual loss, and defendants should then be afforded an opportunity to proffer evidence showing that an offset of the baseline is warranted.” What’s the latest development? On remand, the trial court entered a judgment against CEO Rensin for $13.4 million, the financial harm the court determined that consumers suffered as a result of the scheme. The case is another illustration of the FTC’s interest in effective order enforcement. To settle cases and then not follow through to see that defendants live up to their promises would be, well, hippo-critical.","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 14:06:14 +0200","titre":"Judge orders $13.4 million in contempt action challenging BlueHippo hype","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/05/judge-orders-134-million-contempt-action-challenging-bluehippo-hype"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2012/06/speaking-spokeo-part-2-companys-allegedly-bogus-endorsements","titre":"Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 14:06:13 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements wfg-adm109 June 13, 2012 | 12:25PM Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements By Lesley Fair The lawsuit against data broker Spokeo is the FTC’s first Fair Credit Reporting Act case addressing the collection of online info — including data from social networking sites — when used in the context of employment screening.  But that’s not the only way the Spokeo settlement touches on social media.  The FTC also charged that Spokeo violated Section 5 by having employees post glowing recommendations of the company’s services on news and technology websites without disclosing their true identity. Perhaps just the work of a rogue cubicle occupant?  No, said the FTC.  According to the complaint , Spokeo directed its employees to write the comments.  Spokeo managers then edited what they wrote and had the staffers post the endorsements using account names provided by Spokeo.  The purpose, says the FTC, was to give readers the misleading impression that the laudatory words had been posted by independent consumers or business users of Spokeo. The FTC’s revisions to its Endorsement Guides made headlines a few years ago.  Ironically enough, the provision that seemed to attract the most attention is one that didn’t change.  It’s the law — and it’s always been the law under Section 5 — that consumers have a right to know when there’s a material connection between an advertiser and an endorser.  Here’s how the Guides put it:  \"When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement ( i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed.\" According to the FTC, by posting comments that conveyed the untruthful impression that they came from satisfied users of Spokeo’s services, Spokeo engaged in false and misleading practices.  To settle the endorsement count in the lawsuit, Spokeo has agreed that it won’t misrepresent, expressly or by implication, the status of any user of a product or service — for example, that someone is an independent, ordinary endorser if that’s not the case.  The company also will clearly and prominently disclose any material connection between an endorser and Spokeo (or any other entity advertising, selling, or promoting a product) when a connection exists.  What about the bogus endorsements already posted?  Spokeo has seven days to take all reasonable steps to pull them down. Looking for more about complying with the Endorsement Guides?  Read The FTC’s Revised Endorsement Guides: What People are Asking and watch this video: While you’re at it, share this post and those resources with your marketing staff, your ad agency, your PR firm, and anyone else who plays a role in your publicity and promotions. Next:  What the Spokeo settlement means for your business, your next ad campaign, and your job search","id":3195787},{"pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:38 +0200","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","id":3194915,"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","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free wfg-adm109 November 19, 2014 | 11:12AM Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free By Lesley Fair We’ve brought law enforcement actions – dozens of ‘em. We’ve held workshops, issued reports, and sent warning letters. If it takes sky writing, tap dancing, and a float in a Thanksgiving Day parade, we’ll do that, too. But here’s what’s not going to happen. The FTC is not giving up until businesses get the message that: 1) Free means free; and 2) Key terms and conditions have to be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. A $22 million settlement announced by the FTC and the AGs of Illinois and Ohio with a national credit monitoring service advertising so-called “free” credit scores emphasizes that point. Another note for practitioners: It's the FTC's third case alleging violations of ROSCA . One Technologies and related outfits marketed their credit monitoring programs, MyCreditHealth and ScoreSense, through at least 50 sites, including FreeScore360.com, FreeScoreOnline.com and ScoreSense.com. Their strategy was simple. Buy advertising on search engines so their ads show up near the top when people look for phrases like “free credit report\" and then follow up with a persuasive pitch: “View your latest Credit Scores from All 3 Bureaus in 60 seconds for $0!” According to the lawsuit , the defendants failed to clearly tell consumers that if they availed themselves of those “free” services and didn’t cancel within seven days, the defendants would ding their credit cards for $29.95 a month over and over and over again. The complaint includes screen shots of the defendants’ sites, but before looking at them, take out your reading glasses because they’ll come in handy in trying to locate where the defendants chose to tell people about that $29.95 monthly fee. One line of fine print added in late 2012 said “Free 7-Day trial when you order your 3 Free Credit Scores. Membership is then just $29.95 per month until you call to cancel.” The first problem: The type was tiny – a fraction of the size of the defendants’ multiple use of the word “free.” The second problem: Why should consumers even have to be on the look-out for the cost, given that the defendants so prominently advertised it as “free”? A second purported disclosure appeared as an obscure hyperlink on the page where people typed in their Social Security number and birthdate.  Sandwiched between the logos of various security firms and a large color button that said CONTINUE was this less-than-crystal-clear statement: By clicking on the ‘Continue’ button, you agree to the Offer Details, to the Terms and Conditions, acknowledge receipt of our Privacy Policy and agree to its terms . . . The “Offer Details” link triggered a small pop-up that said, among other things, “At the end of the 7-day trial period, your credit/debit card will be charged $29.95 on a monthly basis until you call to cancel.” Another place the defendants put the information was on a side panel of the Payment Form in white letters on a grey background – a color combination one of the defendants’ own employees described as “known to cause seizures in lab rats.” According to the complaint, once people spotted the unauthorized charges on their accounts, the defendants didn’t make it easy to stop the billing.  And even when people asked for their money back because they hadn’t approved of the charges, the defendants denied refunds to many of them. The lawsuit alleges violations of the FTC Act, as well as the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and related state rules. In addition, the complaint is the third FTC action to charge violations of ROSCA, the Restore Online Shoppers’","id":3194913,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/11/company-pay-22-million-offering-free-credit-scores-turned-out-be-not-so-free","titre":"Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Fighting Coronavirus scams: Taking stock chundycz May 8, 2020 | 9:01AM Fighting Coronavirus scams: Taking stock By Andrew Smith, Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, the FTC has released dozens of warning letters against people trying to make an illegal buck off the Coronavirus. More than a month in, it seems like a good time to look back at what’s happened. If you follow this blog, you’ll know these have been busy weeks – with advice about spotting the many scams we’re all facing, news of the warning letters sent on a wide range of scams, and some enforcement actions filed. You might wonder: Why send letters? Why not just sue the !*$@&#? Fair question. But the letters are working. And, given the scope of the scams out there right now, we want to get the best and fastest results we can with the most efficient tool we have. Right now, for these Coronavirus-related issues, that’s warning letters. In general, here’s how it goes: We spot someone advertising something with no proof that it works – and, in many cases, telling outright lies about its wonders. We send a letter pointing out the illegal things they’re doing. They then have 48 hours to tell us what they’ve done to resolve the problems we’ve raised. In nearly all cases so far, those who get the letters have stopped making the false claims or selling the scammy thing – whether cures from a product or earnings from a work-at-home scheme. Within 48 hours: no more lying to people, no more stealing people’s money. During a crisis like this, we’ve prioritized stopping as many bad actors as we can, as quickly as we can. And when a warning letter will do that, we’ll take that win. Most of the letters sent so far relate to the first scams out of the box: the treatments and cures – many of which we heard about from you. These treatments and cures were, of course, not at all what they claimed to be. The sellers peddled everything from teas and essential oils to IV or ozone “therapies,” stem cell treatments, and high doses of Vitamin C. All of these products have had one thing in common: There was no evidence – none – that they work against the Coronavirus. The warning letters are working in other areas, too. We’ve sent 13 letters to VoIP service providers and other companies, telling them we see how they’re helping illegal telemarketers or robocallers make calls related to COVID-19, and telling them to cut it out. And, just two weeks ago, we sent 10 letters to multi-level marketing (MLM) companies for making exaggerated earnings claims for their business opportunity selling fake Coronavirus treatments or cures from home. These companies hit the daily double: false income claims for their work-at-home program and unsubstantiated health claims for their products. But sometimes you need more firepower to get the desired result. It took a lawsuit to stop a company that, allegedly, pretended to be affiliated with the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program, fooling hundreds – if not thousands – of small businesses. And, last week, we filed suit against Whole Leaf Organics for allegedly claiming to treat not only the Coronavirus, but also cancer with CBD. Both cases are now pending. What we know about COVID-19 changes every week. And right now, the scammers are shifting their focus to the economic impact payments, among other things, to find new ways to get your money or information. But here are some things that remain true: Scammers are peddling cures and treatments with no proof they work. Remember: Right now, there is nothing that has been proven to prevent COVID-19. Anyone who tells you to pay them by gift card, money transfer, cash, or Bitcoin is a scammer. Period. And, if they say they’re from the government, they’re not. Never give your Social Security, bank account, or credit card number to anyone who contacts you. Again, not even if they say","id":3189429,"titre":"Fighting Coronavirus scams: Taking stock","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/05/fighting-coronavirus-scams-taking-stock","pubDate":"Thu, 01 Oct 2026 08:11:56 +0200"},{"source":"OCBF","id":3177325,"description":"La réforme du crédit à la consommation issue de la Directive (UE) 2023/2225 du 18 octobre 2023 et de son ordonnance française de transposition publiée au Journal officiel le 5 septembre 2025 marque une étape majeure dans la protection du consommateur et la régulation du marché du crédit. Cette réforme modernise les règles applicables, intègre […] The post Formation Directive crédit consommation et DCC2 – 20 octobre 2026 appeared first on OCBF","pubDate":"Fri, 25 Sep 2026 14:05:29 +0200","url":"https://www.ocbf.com/formation-directive-credit-consommation-et-dcc2-20-octobre-2026/","titre":"Formation Directive crédit consommation et DCC2 – 20 octobre 2026"},{"pubDate":"Mon, 31 Aug 2026 10:24:26 +0200","url":"https://itsocial.fr/logiciel-agilite/logiciel-agilite-actualites/outsystem-verticalise-son-offre-en-proposant-une-solution-de-credit-a-la-consommation/","titre":"Outsystem verticalise son offre en proposant une solution de crédit à la consommation","id":3125161,"description":"OutSystems diversifie son activité et crée désormais lui-même les applications que sa plateforme servait à faire développer par ses clients. Agentic Loan Applications, une solution d’instruction des demandes de crédit à la consommation, inaugure ce déplacement du fournisseur d’outils vers le métier d’éditeur d’applications. Or la validité de ce basculement reste à démontrer, car les […] The post Outsystem verticalise son offre en proposant une solution de crédit à la consommation appeared first on IT SOCIAL","source":"ACTUALITES - IT SOCIAL"},{"id":3111223,"description":"20261920: America First Federal Credit Union; Greater Nevada Credit Union Date August 20, 2026 bacree August 21, 2026 | 10:21AM Transaction Number 20261920 Acquiring Party America First Federal Credit Union Acquired Party Greater Nevada Credit Union Granting Status Granted Acquired Entities Greater Nevada Credit","source":"HSR Early Termination Notices","pubDate":"Sat, 22 Aug 2026 14:01:29 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/early-termination-notices/20261920","titre":"20261920: America First Federal Credit Union; Greater Nevada Credit Union"},{"titre":"Niche fiscale : modalités et points de vigilance","url":"https://www.fiscaloo.fr/16853-niche-fiscale/","pubDate":"Thu, 06 Aug 2026 07:44:54 +0200","source":"Fiscaloo","description":"La notion de « niche fiscale » désigne couramment un avantage fiscal dérogatoire au régime de droit commun, qui conduit à réduire l’assiette ou le montant d’un impôt. Cet avantage peut notamment prendre la forme d’une exonération, d’une déduction, d’un abattement, d’un taux réduit, d’une réduction ou d’un crédit d’impôt. Cet article présente la définition des niches fiscales, leurs principales formes, leurs objectifs et les précautions à prendre avant d’en bénéficier. The post Niche fiscale : modalités et points de vigilance first appeared on Fiscaloo","id":3079018},{"url":"https://www.alerionavocats.com/alerion-avocats-conseil-bnp-paribas-developpement-et-entrepreneur-invest/","titre":"Alerion Avocats conseille Entrepreneur Invest et BNP Paribas Développement","pubDate":"Mon, 03 Aug 2026 13:54:28 +0200","source":"Alerion Avocats Actualités","description":"Nous sommes heureux d’avoir accompagné et conseillé Entrepreneur Invest (Théophile Basser, Jérôme Houlbracq) et BNP Paribas Développement (Frédérique Cassignol, Benjamin Foret, Bernadette Robin) dans le cadre de la recomposition actionnariale d’Enza Conseil, marquée par l’entrée au capital de BNP Paribas Développement, le réinvestissement d’Entrepreneur Invest et l’intervention du Crédit Agricole Centre France (Cécile Bourdu) en […] The post Alerion Avocats conseille Entrepreneur Invest et BNP Paribas Développement appeared first on Alerion Avocats Paris","id":3073159},{"pubDate":"Wed, 01 Jul 2026 08:09:43 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-requires-amazon-pay-225-million-resolve-charges-it-knowingly-violated-fair-credit-reporting-act","titre":"FTC Requires Amazon to Pay $2.25 Million to Resolve Charges It Knowingly Violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act","id":2997627,"description":"Amazon will pay $2.25 million in civil penalties to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the online retail giant knowingly violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by refusing to provide transaction records to consumers whose personal information was used by identity thieves to commit fraud. The complaint , filed by the Department of Justice upon notification and referral from the FTC, alleged that in numerous instances, Amazon.com Inc. failed to comply with Section 609(e) of the FCRA, which requires companies to, within 30 days of a consumer’s request, provide victims of identity theft with application and business transaction records about fraudulent transactions made in their names. According to the complaint, Amazon had no written policy to respond to Section 609(e) requests until early 2025, after it learned of the FTC’s investigation, despite prior outreach from FTC staff advising the company to review its compliance with Section 609(e). “Amazon often put identity theft victims through a Kafkaesque ordeal by demanding they identify the thief who stole their information before Amazon would release the records the law entitles them to—records that could help victims protect themselves and recover from the fraudulent conduct,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC will not allow companies to simply ignore their legal obligations, especially those designed to support and protect identity theft victims.” Many consumers who contacted Amazon to report fraud were told by its customer service agents that they could not provide the requested records for “security” or “privacy” reasons, the complaint alleged. For example, one consumer reported that when they contacted Amazon seeking business records related to unauthorized charges stemming from a fraudulent account, a company representative said they could not share details about the other account that had used the consumer’s credit card for “security reasons” unless the consumer guessed the name on the account (the name used by the identity thief), which the consumer was unable to do after making 30 attempts. The complaint alleged that in other instances, Amazon agents told consumers they were not able to access the requested records. Amazon even refused to provide application and business transaction records to law enforcement agencies who had been authorized to, and who did, submit requests to Amazon on behalf of consumers who were victims of identity theft. Some frustrated consumers resorted to sending copies of the FCRA and FTC guidance to Amazon in hopes of receiving the requested records, but Amazon still failed to comply with the law. The complaint also alleged that in some cases where Amazon ultimately provided requested records, it failed to respond to consumers within the 30-day timeframe required by the FCRA. In addition to the $2.25 million civil penalty—a record for a Section 609(e) violation—the proposed order will prohibit Amazon from failing to comply with Section 609(e) of the FCRA, requiring the company to provide the records lawfully requested by identity theft victims and law enforcement agencies acting on their behalf. The order also requires Amazon to provide notice to consumers about how identity theft victims can request records under the FCRA. The company must also contact consumers who had requested records since April 2024 from Amazon but did not receive them to inform these consumers that it may have additional records and that the consumers may request those records from Amazon. This is the second case the FTC has brought using its authority under Section 609(e) of the FCRA. The FTC announced its first case involving a violation of Section 609(e) of the FCRA in 2020 against Kohl’s Department Stores Inc . The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize the staff to refer the complaint to the DOJ and to approve the proposed stipulated order. The DOJ filed the complaint and final","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"source":"Fiscaloo","description":"Un non-résident Schumacker reste fiscalement non-résident de France, notamment au regard des conventions fiscales internationales. Il peut toutefois être assimilé à un résident français pour certaines règles de calcul de l’impôt sur le revenu. Cette assimilation peut lui permettre, sous conditions, de bénéficier de charges déductibles, réductions ou crédits d’impôt normalement réservés aux contribuables domiciliés fiscalement en France. Cet article fait le point sur la définition du non-résident Schumacker, les conditions à remplir, les conséquences fiscales de cette qualification et les obligations déclaratives correspondantes. The post Non-résident Schumacker : définition et fiscalité first appeared on Fiscaloo","id":2893217,"titre":"Non-résident Schumacker : définition et fiscalité","url":"https://www.fiscaloo.fr/14541-non-resident-schumacker/","pubDate":"Wed, 20 May 2026 07:47:48 +0200"},{"source":"Fiscaloo","description":"Commettre une erreur sur sa déclaration de revenus n’est pas rare. Oubli d’un revenu, montant prérempli inexact, mauvaise déduction, crédit d’impôt mal renseigné, charge oubliée : plusieurs situations peuvent justifier une correction. La marche à suivre dépend toutefois du moment où l’erreur est détectée. Cet article fait le point sur les principaux moyens de corriger une déclaration de revenus, les délais applicables, les effets d’une télécorrection et les précautions à prendre avant de modifier une déclaration déjà déposée. The post Déclaration rectificative de revenus : comment corriger une erreur ? first appeared on Fiscaloo","id":2892164,"titre":"Déclaration rectificative de revenus : comment corriger une erreur ?","url":"https://www.fiscaloo.fr/16734-declaration-rectificative-de-revenus/","pubDate":"Tue, 19 May 2026 13:48:38 +0200"},{"pubDate":"Thu, 14 May 2026 13:49:29 +0200","url":"https://www.fiscaloo.fr/11999-concubinage-impots/","titre":"Concubinage et impôts : fiscalité, avantages, risques","source":"Fiscaloo","id":2883654,"description":"D’un point de vue fiscal, le concubinage se distingue nettement du mariage et du PACS : les concubins sont en principe imposés séparément à l’impôt sur le revenu, alors que les époux et partenaires de PACS forment un foyer fiscal commun. Cette imposition séparée peut être favorable ou défavorable selon la répartition des revenus, la présence d’enfants à charge et l’utilisation de certains crédits ou réductions d’impôt. Cet article a pour objet de faire un point sur les avantages et les inconvénients du concubinage en matière d’impôts. The post Concubinage et impôts : fiscalité, avantages, risques first appeared on Fiscaloo"},{"id":2847334,"description":"Vincent Poirier, a accompagné Crédit Mutuel Impact, via son fonds RES, dans le cadre de sa prise de participation au capital de la société Agriodor, à l’occasion de sa levée de fonds d’un montant de 15 millions d’euros. Fondée en 2019, Agriodor est une société française innovante spécialisée dans le biocontrôle. Elle développe une technologie […] The post Alerion Avocats a conseillé Crédit Mutuel Impact dans le cadre de sa prise de participation au capital d’Agriodor appeared first on Alerion Avocats Paris","source":"Alerion Avocats Actualités","pubDate":"Sat, 25 Apr 2026 07:58:21 +0200","url":"https://www.alerionavocats.com/alerion-avocats-a-conseille-credit-mutuel-impact-dans-le-cadre-de-sa-prise-de-participation-au-capital-dagriodor/","titre":"Alerion Avocats a conseillé Crédit Mutuel Impact dans le cadre de sa prise de participation au capital d’Agriodor"},{"description":"Sadri Desenne, avocat associé en financement chez Alerion Avocats, signe un article publié dans Option Finance consacré à l’émergence d’un cadre structurant pour la finance de transition labellisée. Le 16 octobre 2025, les trois grandes associations internationales de place du crédit – APLMA (Asia Pacific Loan Market Association), LMA et LSTA – ont publié un […] The post La finance de transition labellisée : un nouveau cadre au soutien de la finance durable appeared first on Alerion Avocats Paris","id":2686511,"source":"Alerion Avocats Actualités","titre":"La finance de transition labellisée : un nouveau cadre au soutien de la finance durable","url":"https://www.alerionavocats.com/la-finance-de-transition-labellisee-un-nouveau-cadre-au-soutien-de-la-finance-durable/","pubDate":"Tue, 10 Feb 2026 15:12:35 +0100"},{"source":"OCBF","description":"La réforme du crédit à la consommation issue de la Directive (UE) 2023/2225 du 18 octobre 2023 et de son ordonnance française de transposition publiée au Journal officiel le 5 septembre 2025 marque une étape majeure dans la protection du consommateur et la régulation du marché du crédit. Cette réforme modernise les règles applicables, intègre […] The post Formation : Directive consommation et DCC2- 5 mars 2026 appeared first on OCBF","id":2676642,"titre":"Formation : Directive consommation et DCC2- 5 mars 2026","url":"https://www.ocbf.com/formation-directive-consommation-et-dcc2-5-mars-2026/","pubDate":"Thu, 05 Feb 2026 09:45:05 +0100"},{"pubDate":"Wed, 28 Jan 2026 09:50:38 +0100","titre":"FTC Secures Settlement Banning Growth Cave Defendants from Marketing and Selling Business Opportunities and Credit Repair Programs","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/01/ftc-secures-settlement-banning-growth-cave-defendants-marketing-selling-business-opportunities","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":2659689,"description":"Defendants behind a wide-ranging operation known as Growth Cave, including its co-CEOs, are permanently banned from marketing and selling business opportunities and credit repair programs as part of an FTC settlement to resolve allegations that their scheme cost consumers nearly $50 million. As part of that settlement, Growth Cave’s co-CEOs also will be required to liquidate millions of dollars’ worth of assets, including a multimillion-dollar house, to provide consumer redress. “On day one, the Trump-Vance FTC reprioritized combatting fraud that harms American markets. Today’s successful resolution demonstrates that the Commission is focused on protecting our markets from dishonest actors,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. The FTC  sued Growth Cave  in February 2025, alleging that consumers were deceived by false promises of significant income. Growth Cave allegedly offered numerous business opportunities, which regularly failed to deliver the promised results while costing consumers thousands of dollars. The amended complaint also alleges that consumers had trouble reaching Growth Cave employees and obtaining customer support. Named as defendants in the lawsuit were Growth Cave’s co-CEOs Lucas Lee-Tyson and Osmany Batte, Operations Manager Jordan Marksberry, related Growth Cave entities, and relief defendant Friendly Solar. The FTC previously approved, and the court entered, a stipulated order settling its charges against Marksberry late last August. That order bans Marksberry from: marketing or selling business opportunities, engaging in credit repair activities, and making misleading earning claims or assisting others in doing the same. Finally, the order includes a judgment of $48,597,538 against him, which has been partially suspended upon his payment of $35,000 to the Commission. The court orders announced today settle the FTC’s charges against all remaining defendants in this case. The first order (the LLT order) binds Lee-Tyson, individually and as an officer and/or owner of Growth Cave, LLC and LLT Research LLC. The second order (the Batte order)   binds Apex Mind, LLC; Osmany Batte, individually and as an officer of Growth Cave, LLC and Apex Mind, LLC; and relief defendant Friendly Solar, Inc. Both orders announced today contain similar conduct provisions, banning the defendants from selling and marketing—or assisting others in selling or marketing—business opportunities and from engaging in credit repair activities. They also prohibit the defendants from making misleading representations related to earnings claims, testimonials, and the use of artificial intelligence. The orders also impose judgments of $48,597,538 against the defendants, which will be partially suspended based on their inability to pay. The LLT order requires Lee-Tyson to sell a range of assets, including his multimillion-dollar house, and liquidate his investment and bank accounts. The proceeds of these transactions will be transferred to the Commission and will be used for consumer redress. The Batte order requires Batte to liquidate several assets including a Rolls-Royce and a Ferrari. Relief defendant Friendly Solar is required to transfer $43,000 to the Commission for its part in profiting from the defendants’ illegal conduct. The Commission vote approving the August stipulated order with defendant Marksberry was 3-0, and the vote approving the orders announced today against the remaining defendants was 2-0. The proposed orders were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The staff attorneys on this matter are Maris Snell and Adrienne Jenkins of the FTC’s East Central Region and Miles Freeman of the FTC’s Western Region Los"},{"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":"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"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","description":"The Federal Trade Commission is sending payments totaling more than $27.6 million to consumers who were enrolled, without their knowledge, in plans where they were shipped and charged repeatedly for products marketed to promote weight loss, clear skin, and other healthcare benefits. According to  the FTC’s July 2024 complaint , defendants Legion Media, LLC, KP Commerce, LLC, Pinnacle Payments, LLC, Sloan Health Products, LLC, and their principals, operated two types of unauthorized billing scams. In the first, the FTC alleged that the defendants defrauded consumers who bought CBD and Keto-related products by charging them more than the advertised price and enrolling them in continuity plans without their consent in which they are charged for products they never intended or agreed to buy. Several defendants participated in a second scheme where consumers paid a small shipping fee for a supposedly free “gift.” However, after consumers used their credit and debit cards to pay the fee, they incurred recurring unauthorized charges on their cards. In September 2024,  the Commission announced settlements requiring the defendants to forfeit tens of millions of dollars in assets and permanently banning them from the alleged illegal conduct. The settlement orders also banned them from marketing or selling any product or service using a negative option feature. The FTC is sending checks and PayPal payments to 1,215,337 affected consumers between now and December 18, 2025. Most consumers will receive a check in the mail. Check recipients should cash their checks within 90 days, as indicated on the check. PayPal recipients should redeem their PayPal payments within 30 days. Consumers who have questions about their payment should contact the refund administrator, Rust Consulting, at 866-914-9330, or visit the FTC website to  view frequently asked questions  about the refund process. The Commission never requires people to pay money or provide account information to get a refund. The Commission’s  interactive dashboards for refund data  provide a state-by-state breakdown of refunds in FTC cases. In 2024, FTC actions led to more than $339 million in refunds to consumers across the","id":2562491,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/ftc-sends-more-276-million-consumers-harmed-unauthorized-billing-schemes","titre":"FTC Sends More Than $27.6 Million to Consumers Harmed by Unauthorized Billing Schemes","pubDate":"Wed, 10 Dec 2025 09:52:09 +0100"},{"id":2458262,"description":"À l’occasion de la publication, le 3 septembre dernier, de l’Ordonnance n°2025-880 de transposition de la directive 2008/48/CE du 23 avril 2008 concernant les contrats de crédit aux consommateurs (« DCCII« ) en droit français, l’OCBF organise pour ses adhérents un webinaire d’information, en partenariat avec le Cabinet Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, sur le thème de : […] The post Webinaire Révision de la Directive « Crédit à la consommation » : Enjeux et perspectives – 25 Novembre appeared first on OCBF","source":"OCBF","pubDate":"Fri, 24 Oct 2025 09:46:39 +0200","url":"https://www.ocbf.com/webinaire-revision-de-la-directive-credit-a-la-consommation-enjeux-et-perspectives-25-novembre/","titre":"Webinaire Révision de la Directive « Crédit à la consommation » : Enjeux et perspectives – 25 Novembre"},{"url":"https://www.alerionavocats.com/controle-du-cir-au-dela-de-leligibilite-des-projets-la-necessite-de-soigner-la-justification-de-la-base-de-calcul-du-credit-dimpot/","titre":"Contrôle du CIR : au-delà de l’éligibilité des projets, la nécessité de soigner la justification de la base de calcul du crédit d’impôt","pubDate":"Wed, 24 Sep 2025 15:40:51 +0200","description":"Article rédigé par Jérémie Mancel-Cottrel, avocat associé en droit fiscal, dans Option Finance. Le crédit d’impôt recherche (CIR) est un outil puissant d’aide à la R&D pour les entreprises. Ce dispositif permet en effet de bénéficier d’un crédit d’impôt correspondant à 30 % du montant des dépenses de recherches engagées par l’entreprise jusqu’à 100 millions […] The post Contrôle du CIR : au-delà de l’éligibilité des projets, la nécessité de soigner la justification de la base de calcul du crédit d’impôt appeared first on Alerion Avocats Paris","id":2391624,"source":"Alerion Avocats Actualités"},{"titre":"Formation Risque de crédit / CRR3 – 8 octobre 2025","url":"https://www.ocbf.com/formation-risque-de-credit-crr3-8-octobre-2025/","pubDate":"Thu, 18 Sep 2025 15:47:26 +0200","description":"Le règlement européen CRR3 est entré en vigueur en janvier 2025. Cette réglementation impacte tous les établissements de crédit. OCBF-Services et formation vous propose de participer à une formation Risque de crédit/ CRR3 – premier retour d’expérience sur l’implémentation de la réglementation, le 8 octobre 2025. Cette nouvelle session de formation vous propose de reprendre […] The post Formation Risque de crédit / CRR3 – 8 octobre 2025 appeared first on OCBF","id":2380709,"source":"OCBF"},{"pubDate":"Mon, 18 Aug 2025 15:43:36 +0200","url":"https://www.ocbf.com/webinaire-lutte-contre-la-fraude-16-septembre-2025/","titre":"Webinaire Lutte contre la fraude – 16 septembre 2025","id":2318412,"description":"Au-delà des risques IT, les établissements bancaires font actuellement face à une augmentation significative des risques de fraude via de nouveaux schémas liés aux opérations. Ainsi, on voit apparaître une tendance forte liée aux fraudes au crédit, de fréquence faible mais avec un impact potentiellement important, pour lesquelles les banques souffrent d’un manque de recul. […] The post Webinaire Lutte contre la fraude – 16 septembre 2025 appeared first on OCBF","source":"OCBF"},{"url":"https://www.alerionavocats.com/valorisation-et-croissance-externe-en-matiere-de-financement-syndique/","titre":"Valorisation et croissance externe en matière de financement syndiqué","pubDate":"Wed, 30 Jul 2025 09:37:04 +0200","source":"Alerion Avocats Actualités","description":"Article rédigé par Sadri Desenne, associé au sein du département financement, dans Finance & Gestion la revue des dirigeants financier. Les contrats de crédits syndiqués encadrent usuellement les opérations de croissance externe de l’emprunteur en limitant la valeur d’entreprise des cibles éligibles acquises. Ce cadre restreint la stratégie de développement de l’emprunteur. Nous rappelons ainsi quelques […] The post Valorisation et croissance externe en matière de financement syndiqué appeared first on Alerion Avocats Paris","id":2281736},{"id":2160083,"description":"Le règlement européen CRR3 est entré en vigueur en 2025. Il impacte tous les établissements de crédit. Cette nouvelle formation reprendra les éléments structurants sur le risque de crédit et permettra également de faire un premier état des lieux sur les modalités de mise en oeuvre de CRR3. Les principaux points abordés au programme : […] The post Formation CRR3 : premier retour d'expérience d'implémentation de la règlementation-20/06/2025 appeared first on OCBF","source":"OCBF","pubDate":"Wed, 04 Jun 2025 09:43:00 +0200","titre":"Formation CRR3 : premier retour d’expérience d’implémentation de la règlementation-20/06/2025","url":"https://www.ocbf.com/formation-crr3-premier-retour-dexperience-dimplementation-de-la-reglementation-20-06-2025/"},{"titre":"Formation Culture risques et cartographie des risques opérationnels – 13/06/2025","url":"https://www.ocbf.com/formation-culture-risques-et-cartographie-des-risques-operationnels-13-06-2025/","pubDate":"Tue, 03 Jun 2025 15:47:25 +0200","description":"De la culture du risque à l’optimisation de la cartographie des risques opérationnels Suite à diverses affaires qui ont interpelé le secteur bancaire (Sillicon Valley Bank, Crédit Suisse,…), la Banque Centrale Européenne a réaffirmé la nécessité pour les établissements de disposer d’un framework cohérent et opérationnel de pilotage des risques et a publié en juillet […] The post Formation Culture risques et cartographie des risques opérationnels – 13/06/2025 appeared first on OCBF","id":2158477,"source":"OCBF"},{"description":"Dans le cadre du renforcement du dispositif de surveillance du risque de taux d’intérêt dans le portefeuille bancaire (IRRBB) et du risque de spread de crédit (CSRBB), les nouvelles exigences de reporting définies par l’EBA dans le cadre COREP 3.4 sont entrées en vigueur en septembre 2024. Elles imposent à toutes les banques de l’UE de produire des […] The post Webinaire IRRBB / nouveautés règlementaires et défis opérationnels appeared first on OCBF","id":2132951,"source":"OCBF","url":"https://www.ocbf.com/webinaire-irrbb-nouveautes-reglementaires-et-defis-operationnels/","titre":"Webinaire IRRBB / nouveautés règlementaires et défis opérationnels","pubDate":"Thu, 22 May 2025 15:44:25 +0200"},{"url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-138/putting-the-initiative-back-together/","titre":"Putting the Initiative Back Together","pubDate":"Thu, 15 May 2025 15:55:44 +0200","description":"The American ballot initiative is a powerful tool. Initiatives can innovate: Four states can credit ballot initiatives for legislative redistricting commissions that removed redistricting... The post Putting the Initiative Back Together appeared first on Harvard Law Review","id":2117257,"source":"Harvard Law Review"},{"titre":"The Federal Reserve’s Forgotten Credit Mandate","url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-138/the-federal-reserves-forgotten-credit-mandate/","pubDate":"Thu, 15 May 2025 15:55:44 +0200","description":"In 2021, prices in the United States and across the globe rose rapidly, reintroducing a concern that had lain mostly dormant in U.S. politics... The post The Federal Reserve’s Forgotten Credit Mandate appeared first on Harvard Law Review","id":2117258,"source":"Harvard Law Review"},{"source":"OCBF","description":"L’objectif poursuivi par l’EBA de réduire le stock des NPL en Europe s’inscrit inévitablement dans ceux de sa guideline sur la politique d’octroi de crédit renforçant ainsi l’enjeu du pilotage du risque de crédit. Par ailleurs, les critères ESG sont de plus en plus intégrés dans la démarche globale des acteurs amenés à mettre en œuvre […] The post Formation Politique d'octroi de crédit et critères ESG – 14/04/2025 appeared first on OCBF","id":2038199,"titre":"Formation Politique d’octroi de crédit et critères ESG – 14/04/2025","url":"https://www.ocbf.com/formation-politique-doctroi-de-credit-et-criteres-esg-14-04-2025/","pubDate":"Mon, 07 Apr 2025 15:44:45 +0200"},{"description":"A bank that agrees to grant credit to a client is bound by certain obligations. Failure to meet these obligations may give rise to quasi-delictual civil liability. In the context of so-called “regulated” credit — such as mortgage loans and consumer credit, both of which are governed by Book VII of the Code of Economic... Continue Reading → The post Bank Liability When Granting Credit: 10 Key Principles of Belgian Banking Law appeared first on Banking and Finance law in Belgium","id":2025077,"source":"Droit bancaire et financier en Belgique","titre":"Bank Liability When Granting Credit: 10 Key Principles of Belgian Banking Law","url":"https://bankinglaw.be/en/bank-liability-when-granting-credit-10-key-principles-of-belgian-banking-law/","pubDate":"Tue, 01 Apr 2025 15:36:54 +0200"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/03/ftc-chairman-andrew-n-ferguson-appoints-deputy-directors-bureaus-competition-consumer-protection","titre":"FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson Appoints Deputy Directors of the Bureaus of Competition and Consumer Protection","pubDate":"Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:50:56 +0100","source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués","description":"Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson today announced he has appointed Taylor C. Hoogendoorn as Deputy Director of the Bureau of Competition and Katherine White as Deputy Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection.  Hoogendoorn is a talented litigator with expertise in a wide range of litigation, including antitrust, tort, contractual, energy, and intellectual property matters. Hoogendoorn joins the FTC after spending time in private practice at a law firm in Houston. He clerked for the Hon. Samuel A. Alito Jr. on the Supreme Court of the United States; the Hon. Gregory G. Katsas on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; and the Hon. J. Harvie Wilkinson III on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Hoogendoorn holds a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he won the Morris Tyler Moot Court of Appeals and served on the Yale Law Journal, and a B.B.A. with majors in Economics, Finance, Mathematics, and Business Fellows from Baylor University. While at Baylor, he served on the university’s Board of Regents and graduated as the top-ranked student in the Hankamer School of Business. White is an experienced privacy and consumer protection attorney, with a career in both government service and private practice. White has deep experience in all aspects of consumer protection law and has led complex investigations relating to privacy, data security, and credit reporting. Most recently, White was a partner at a law firm. Prior to joining the firm, White spent nearly 15 years at the FTC and served in a variety of roles, including as an Attorney Advisor to former Commissioner Noah Phillips during the first Trump administration, Counsel to the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, and as a senior attorney in the Division of Privacy and Identity Protection. In addition, White worked on detail for the Senate Commerce Committee where she provided advice on a range of consumer protection issues. She is a graduate of the George Washington University Law School and the University of","id":2013068},{"source":"Droit bancaire et financier en Belgique","id":1748491,"description":"Précision ou rappel sur la notion d'interruption de la prescription en droit civil belge; dans une affaire relative à des crédits et des titres Fortis, l’investisseur a vu sa demande déclarée prescrite, la Cour estimant que les nouvelles demandes n’étaient pas virtuellement incluses dans la demande initiale. The post Responsabilité bancaire et interruption de la prescription en droit belge : enseignements d’une décision de cour d’appel appeared first on Banking and Financial law in Belgium","pubDate":"Mon, 02 Dec 2024 08:54:29 +0100","titre":"Responsabilité bancaire et interruption de la prescription en droit belge : enseignements d’une décision de cour d’appel","url":"https://bankinglaw.be/responsabilite-bancaire-et-interruption-de-la-prescription-en-droit-belge-enseignements-dune-decision-de-cour-dappel/"},{"pubDate":"Wed, 26 Jun 2024 15:06:06 +0200","url":"https://bankinglaw.be/responsabilite-de-la-banque-lors-de-loctroi-dun-credit-10-principes-cles-du-droit-bancaire-belge/","titre":"Responsabilité de la banque lors de l’octroi d’un crédit : 10 principes clés du droit bancaire belge","source":"Droit bancaire et financier en Belgique","id":1418931,"description":"Comment les cours et tribunaux apprécient-ils la responsabilité du banquier à l'occasion de l'octroi d'un crédit à un client ? The post Responsabilité de la banque lors de l’octroi d’un crédit : 10 principes clés du droit bancaire belge appeared first on Droit bancaire et financier en Belgique"},{"pubDate":"Wed, 26 Jun 2024 15:06:06 +0200","titre":"Responsabilité de la Banque en Cas de Refus de Crédit ou de Prolongation : Étude de Cas","url":"https://bankinglaw.be/responsabilite-de-la-banque-en-cas-de-refus-de-credit-ou-de-prolongation-etude-de-cas/","id":1418932,"description":"analyse juridique de la responsabilité d'une banque en cas de refus de crédit ou de prolongation de crédit. Étude de cas et implications The post Responsabilité de la Banque en Cas de Refus de Crédit ou de Prolongation : Étude de Cas appeared first on Droit bancaire et financier en Belgique","source":"Droit bancaire et financier en Belgique"},{"source":"Droit bancaire et financier en Belgique","id":1397554,"description":"analyse juridique de la responsabilité d'une banque en cas de refus de crédit ou de prolongation de crédit. Étude de cas et implications The post Responsabilité de la Banque en Cas de Refus de Crédit ou de Prolongation : Étude de Cas appeared first on Droit bancaire et financier en Belgique","pubDate":"Sun, 16 Jun 2024 14:59:04 +0200","url":"https://droitbancaire.be/responsabilite-de-la-banque-en-cas-de-refus-de-credit-ou-de-prolongation-etude-de-cas/","titre":"Responsabilité de la Banque en Cas de Refus de Crédit ou de Prolongation : Étude de Cas"},{"source":"Gide News & Insights","id":1391523,"description":"Gide advised Crédit Agricole SA on the sale to the Holmarcom group (Holmarcom Finance City) of the second and final 15% tranche of its stake in Crédit du Maroc, a Moroccan bank listed on the Casablanca stock exchange. This transaction follows the sale by Crédit Agricole SA of the first tranche of 63.7% of its stake in Crédit du Maroc on 6 December 2022. Following this transaction, Crédit Agricole no longer holds any shares in Crédit du","pubDate":"Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:04:37 +0200","url":"https://www.gide.com/en/news/gide-advises-credit-agricole-sa-on-the-sale-of-its-residual-15-stake-in-credit-du-maroc","titre":"Gide advises Crédit Agricole S.A. on the sale of its residual 15% stake in Crédit du Maroc"},{"titre":"Responsabilité de la banque lors de l’octroi d’un crédit : 10 principes clés du droit bancaire belge","url":"https://droitbancaire.be/responsabilite-de-la-banque-lors-de-loctroi-dun-credit-10-principes-cles-du-droit-bancaire-belge/","pubDate":"Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:29:39 +0200","source":"Droit bancaire et financier en Belgique","description":"Comment les cours et tribunaux apprécient-ils la responsabilité du banquier à l'occasion de l'octroi d'un crédit à un client ? The post Responsabilité de la banque lors de l’octroi d’un crédit : 10 principes clés du droit bancaire belge appeared first on Droit bancaire et financier en Belgique","id":1382946},{"pubDate":"Thu, 30 May 2024 09:44:17 +0200","url":"https://droitbancaire.be/garantie-detat-pour-certains-credits-octroyes-du-1er-avril-2020-au-30-septembre-2020/","titre":"Garantie d’état pour certains crédits octroyés du 1er avril 2020 au 30 septembre 2020","source":"Droit bancaire et financier en Belgique","id":1360923,"description":"Notre équipe spécialisée en droit bancaire et du crédit a résumé le régime de garantie des crédits consentis du 1er avril 2020 au 30 septembre 2020. The post Garantie d’état pour certains crédits octroyés du 1er avril 2020 au 30 septembre 2020 appeared first on Droit bancaire et financier en Belgique"},{"description":"Publication au M.B. de l’arrêté ministériel modalisant les possibilités de bénéficier de la garantie d’état sur les crédits (Covid) de > 50.000.000 EUR. Vous pouvez consulter l’arrêté ministériel ici. Cet article est en lien avec un article précédent consultable ici. The post Garantie d'état sur les crédits (Covid) de plus de 50.000.000 EUR appeared first on Droit bancaire et financier en Belgique","id":1360924,"source":"Droit bancaire et financier en Belgique","titre":"Garantie d’état sur les crédits (Covid) de plus de 50.000.000 EUR","url":"https://droitbancaire.be/garantie-credits-50mio-covid/","pubDate":"Thu, 30 May 2024 09:44:17 +0200"},{"titre":"COVID : reports de paiement sur crédits, conditions, plans de paiement, etc.","url":"https://droitbancaire.be/covid-19-report-paiement-credits/","pubDate":"Thu, 30 May 2024 09:44:16 +0200","source":"Droit bancaire et financier en Belgique","description":"Suite à la crise sanitaire actuelle, de nombreuses mesures ont été prises. C'est également le cas concernant le domaine des crédits. The post COVID : reports de paiement sur crédits, conditions, plans de paiement, etc. appeared first on Droit bancaire et financier en Belgique","id":1360922},{"id":1360920,"description":"Dans le cadre d’un programme de fidélité de voyageurs lancé par plusieurs compagnies aériennes, ces dernières ont lancé, en partenariat avec un établissement de crédit belge, une carte de crédit « co-brandée » (le nom de la banque ainsi que de la compagnie aérienne y figurent) permettant au consommateur d’accumuler des « miles » de fidélité. La réglementation relative au crédit à la consommation est d’application. The post Intermédiaires de crédit – carte de crédit co-brandée – exercice non-autorisé de l’activité appeared first on Droit bancaire et financier en Belgique","source":"Droit bancaire et financier en Belgique","pubDate":"Thu, 30 May 2024 09:44:15 +0200","url":"https://droitbancaire.be/intermediaires-de-credit-carte-de-credit-co-brandee-exercice-non-autorise-de-lactivite/","titre":"Intermédiaires de crédit – carte de crédit co-brandée – exercice non-autorisé de l’activité"},{"url":"https://businesstoday.news/unlocking-success-industries-with-the-highest-profit-per-employee-revealed/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=unlocking-success-industries-with-the-highest-profit-per-employee-revealed","titre":"Unlocking Success: Industries with the Highest Profit per Employee Revealed!","pubDate":"Wed, 01 May 2024 10:22:38 +0200","source":"Business Today","description":"Key Takeaways: Subtitle: Delving into Profitability Metrics and Strategic Expansion Insights Across UK Industries. The Profitability Equation: Decoding Industries’ Performance In the realm of business efficiency, a key metric stands out: profit per employee. This metric not only reflects operational efficiency but also plays a pivotal role in strategic decision-making, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) aiming to maintain profitability amidst growth aspirations. A recent analysis by money.co.uk business credit card experts unveils the industries with the highest profit per employee in the UK, shedding light on strategic insights for sustainable business expansion. Unveiling Profitability: Top Industries and Their The post Unlocking Success: Industries with the Highest Profit per Employee Revealed! appeared first on Business Today","id":1292952},{"description":"Key Takeaways: Subtitle: Unraveling Profitability Trends and Strategic Insights Across UK Industries. Unveiling the Profitability Enigma: Industries at Their Employee-Earning Peak In the intricate tapestry of business success, a crucial thread is the profit per employee metric. It not only measures operational efficiency but also serves as a barometer for strategic decision-making, especially critical for SMEs aiming at sustained profitability amid growth ambitions. A recent analysis by money.co.uk business credit card experts delves into the industries with the highest profit per employee in the UK, unlocking strategic insights for businesses eyeing financial excellence. Mining the Wealth: Top Industries and Their The post Secrets Unveiled: Industries That Turn Employees Into Gold Mines appeared first on Business Today","id":1292953,"source":"Business Today","titre":"Secrets Unveiled: Industries That Turn Employees Into Gold Mines","url":"https://businesstoday.news/secrets-unveiled-industries-that-turn-employees-into-gold-mines/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=secrets-unveiled-industries-that-turn-employees-into-gold-mines","pubDate":"Wed, 01 May 2024 10:22:38 +0200"},{"pubDate":"Thu, 07 Mar 2024 16:31:41 +0100","titre":"The Gender Credit Crunch: How Women Navigate Financial Rejection","url":"https://businesstoday.news/the-gender-credit-crunch-how-women-navigate-financial-rejection/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-gender-credit-crunch-how-women-navigate-financial-rejection","source":"Business Today","id":1170683,"description":"Key Takeaways: In a revealing study by Fair4All Finance, the not-for-profit financial inclusion organization, it has been discovered that women, once rejected for credit or loans, are more likely than men to perceive “no” as a final verdict. As we celebrate International Women’s Day, the findings shed light on the gender credit crunch, emphasizing the need for addressing financial inequalities faced by women. Breaking Down the Gender Credit Crunch: A Comprehensive Analysis Barriers to Credit Applications: The study, polling 3,101 adults across the UK, uncovered that over a third of women (36%) are deterred from applying for credit due to The post The Gender Credit Crunch: How Women Navigate Financial Rejection appeared first on Business Today"},{"source":"Sérendipidoc","id":1137104,"description":"Crédits : Olivier Le Moal Dans cet article, je propose des trucs et astuces pour retrouver une jurisprudence qui pose problème The post Recherche de jurisprudence posant problème appeared first on Sérendipidoc","pubDate":"Tue, 20 Feb 2024 08:45:40 +0100","url":"https://www.serendipidoc.fr/recherche-de-jurisprudence-posant-probleme/","titre":"Recherche de jurisprudence posant problème"},{"source":"Journal d'un avocat","id":3143,"description":"L’affaire judiciaire m’ayant opposé à l’association ” Institut pour la Justice “, les guillemets sont importants car cette association n’est ni un institut ni pour la justice, cette affaire donc a donc connu un dénouement heureux après sept ans de procédure. Je suis au fil de ces sept années resté aussi coi qu’un de mes clients en garde à vue, laissant mes adversaires s’exprimer sur le sujet. À présent, pour citer le grand philosophe Jules Winnfield : « Allow me to retort. » Ce récit des faits se veut, comme à l’accoutumée ici, factuel. Je citerai les décisions de justice qui ont été rendues, sinon in extenso du moins l’intégralité des passages pertinents. J’y ajouterai mon commentaire, car je suis ici chez moi, vous en ferez ce que vous voudrez (si vous manquez d’idées, vous trouverez au fil de ces billets quelques suggestions sur quoi en faire), l’essentiel étant qu’à la fin, vous saurez tout. Cette saga aura lieu en cinq chapitres, qui couvriront l’affaire en ordre chronologique. Le premier, que vous tenez sur vos écrans en ce moment, rappellera le corpus delicti : pourquoi ai-je attiré l’ire de l’IPJ ? Ce rappel des faits est utile, vous verrez, car l’évolution de notre société en sept ans leur donne un aspect parfois prophétique. Le deuxième parlera de la phase à l’époque secrète : la plainte, l’enquête, l’instruction, et le premier faux départ avec une première audience avortée. Le troisième portera sur le jugement de Nanterre de 2015. Le quatrième, sur l’arrêt d’appel en 2017, et enfin le cinquième vous ramènera en douceur aujourd’hui avec les pourvois en cassation (car il y en a eu trois, vous verrez), et les conclusions qu’à titre personnel je tire de cette affaire. Ah ! vous vous plaigniez que mon blog végétait ? Vous allez avoir de la lecture, à satiété. J’espère d’ailleurs que ce sera l’occasion de relancer l’activité régulière de ce blog, les réseaux sociaux commençant à me fatiguer. Je sais, je le dis depuis longtemps, mais la motivation et l’inspiration sont là, mes enfants ont grandi et leur Switch me laisse à présent du temps libre, en somme, les étoiles sont alignées favorablement hormis un petit problème d’hébergement que je vais résoudre promptement. Et si je devais faillir, n’hésitez pas à venir me chercher par la peau des fesses sur Twitter. A propos de fesses, il est temps de commencer ce récit. Installez-vous confortablement, faites-vous une bonne tasse de thé (un Darkeeling First Flush sera parfait), et remontons le temps de conserve. En selles ! The year is 2011 Les plus perspicaces d’entre vous se souviendront que 2011 était l’année précédant 2012. Année d’élection présidentielle, le président en place, Nicolas Sarkozy, étant candidat à sa succession, et alors qu’il avait été élu sur une plate-forme politique modérée voire centriste (discours ouvert sur l’immigration, rappelant qu’il était Français de sang-mêlé, apaisé sur la laïcité, il avait même recruté quelques personnalités de gauche dans son premier gouvernement, sans compter un goût certain dans le choix de ses convives à déjeuner), il avait opéré un virage sécuritaire pour compenser des résultats économiques décevants. C’est d’ailleurs assez fascinant de voir comment à chaque fois que la droite prend un tel virage elle se prend une déculottée électorale et comment, malgré tout, elle commet régulièrement cette erreur avec la régularité d’un coucou suisse. Je pose ça là. Bref, Nicolas Sarkozy était vulnérable, et cette position l’a poussé à une fuite en avant, sur les conseils peu avisés, pardon du pléonasme, de Patrick Buisson. C’est dans ce cadre que l’IPJ, association que je connaissais déjà bien avant, et qui sous un fard pesudo-scientifique promeut des thèses sécuritaires réactionnaires que rien, jamais, n’a étayé, a lancé une offensive médiatique à l’adresse des candidats, en les invitant à adhérer à leur “pacte 2012 pour la justice”, en faisant miroiter que le ou les candidats qui s’engagerait à l’intégrer dans leur programme auraient leur soutien. Quand on est une association sans aucune reconnaissance scientifique dans le milieu universitaire, comment attirer l’attention ? Là, il faut reconnaître à l’IPJ d’avoir été en avance sur son temps : en diffusant sur Facebook un message appelant à l’émotion et à l’indignation, ne fournissant aucun fait mais se contentant d’une interprétation créative de la réalité, et se concluant par un appel à signer la pétition en faveur de leur pacte, à faire circuler ce message, et à faire un don (mais curieusement pas à en vérifier la véracité, mais bon on l’a dit : ce ne sont pas des universitaires). Et comme de nombreuses personnes de bonne foi ont été touchées par ce message, qui reconnaissons-le était émouvant, mais malgré tout ressentait à la fin comme un malaise face à cette absence d’explications concrètes, ces personnes se sont tournées vers votre serviteur, sachant que chez moi, on trouvait des réponses claires et étayées sur des faits, fût-ce au prix d’interminables billets et de phrases trop longues. Le Pacte et la torche C’est ainsi que fin octobre 2011, j’ai reçu de nombreuses demandes me demandant ce que je pensais de cette pétition. Dans un premier temps, dès que j’ai vu qui en était à l’origine, je me contentais d’une réponse lapidaire (ça me jouera des tours, comme vous allez le voir ; après ça on me reprochera de faire des phrases trop longues…) sur le peu de crédit à y accorder. Mais au fil des jours, les demandes devenaient de plus en plus nombreuses, et émanaient de gens vraiment désemparés qui voyaient leurs proches et amis relayer ce message sur un ton révolté, et se sentaient fort dépourvus pour pouvoir leur répondre en quoi cet appel était factuellement erroné. Ça vous rappelle quelque chose, n’est-ce pas ? Je vous l’avais dit : ce dossier, pour ancien qu’il soit, est furieusement moderne. Et donc, à mon corps défendant, je suis allé voir de quoi il retournait exactement. La pétition en faveur du Pacte 2012 pour la Justice reposait sur un témoignage, celui de Joël Censier. Il reposait sur une affaire dont je n’avais pas entendu parler, mais, ai-je découvert par la suite, était un fait divers d’une grande importance dans le sud-ouest, autour du Gers, où les faits avaient eu lieu. Joël Censier, policier à la retraite, était le père de Jérémy Censier, 19 ans, tué d’un coup de couteau lors d’une rixe nocturne où il était intervenu pour séparer les belligérants. Le père était inconsolable, et je le comprends, et avait découvert que parmi les belligérants, il y avait des gens du Voyage qu’il avait eu l’occasion d’interpeller par le passé. Pour lui, sa conviction était faite : ce n’était pas un accident mais une vengeance. Voilà pourquoi cette affaire avait intéressé la presse locale. En août 2011, S. est mis en accusation devant les assises pour meurtre, les autres intervenants étant renvoyés pour des violences volontaires, la thèse de la vengeance ayant fait long feu au fil de l’instruction. Et en septembre 2011 un incident procédural se produisit : les aveux du du principal suspect, S., mineur au moment des faits, ont été annulés du fait de l’absence d’avocats en garde à vue, et l’intéressé, détenu depuis deux ans, a été remis en liberté par la Cour de cassation à la suite d’une nullité de procédure. Pour être exhaustif : l’avocat de S. avait demandé au président de la chambre de l’instruction de faire examiner l’affaire par la chambre de l’instruction conformément à l’article 221-3 du code de procédure pénale : il avait décidé de faire droit à cette demande, mais l’affaire n’avait pas été audiencée à temps devant la chambre de l’instruction. Il est à noter que l’arrêt est intervenu plus de deux ans après l’incarcération, et que de ce fait, le mineur a fait plus de deux ans de détention provisoire ce que théoriquement la loi interdit. Il aurait dû être libéré quoi qu’il arrive, mais du fait de cette nullité de procédure viciant sa détention, il a fait plus de détention qu’il n’aurait dû. Les mystères du droit. Mais tout cela n’avait que peu d’importance pour Joël Censier, qui ne voyait qu’une chose, celui qui avait tué son fils était libre et ses aveux étant annulés, il pouvait craindre qu’il s’en tirât. Notons que par la suite, S. s’est présenté librement aux assises pour y être jugé, et a été condamné en février 2013 a 15 ans de réclusion criminelle (la cour a écarté l’excuse de minorité), deux autres des belligérants ont été condamnés pour violences (l’un a quatre ans, l’autre à trois ans dont un avec sursis), les trois autres mis en cause étant acquittés conformément aux réquisitions du parquet. Comme quoi la justice ne semble pas si dysfonctionner que cela, mais l’IPJ a moins fait de publicité sur cet aspect du dossier. Toujours est-il que l’IPJ en a fait son porte-étendard, et avec quel succès. Car qui, franchement, oserait objecter quoi que ce soit à la douleur d’un père ayant perdu son enfant ? Eh bien devinez qui… J’ai donc rédigé un long billet, intitulé Attention manip : le “pacte 2012” de “l’Institut pour la Justice”, où je démontais point par point le procédé sur la forme, et le message sur le fond. Je n’y reviendrai pas, il n’est que de le lire. Comme d’habitude, un mensonge aura fait deux fois le tour du monde quand la vérité aura à peine mis son pantalon : je ne vais pas prétendre que mon billet a eu un succès similaire au Pacte. Mais il a quand même eu son petit effet, et l’IPJ a commencé à recevoir beaucoup de messages demandant à ce que la signature de leur auteur soit retirée de cette pétition, ayant le sentiment d’avoir été bernés. Ce nombre exact restera à jamais un mystère, l’IPJ laissant au fil de ses argumentaires entendre qu’il y en eût très peu pour dire que je n’étais rien ni personne, et en même temps qu’il y en eût beaucoup pour justifier leur demande de dommages-intérêts qui vous le verrez n’avait rien de symbolique. Bref, des signataires de Schrödinger. Et cet aspect éthéré des signataires était au cœur du problème : ce qui démontrait le succès de ce pacte, et était sans cesse mis en avant par l’IPJ, était le nombre de signataires, qui a atteint le million en quelques jours. Si je ne doute pas, pour les raisons que je vous ai données plus haut, de la réalité de ce succès, sa quantification m’a posé un problème de méthodologie : ce compteur de signatures était, à l’instar de la pétition, hébergé sur un site dédié appartenant à l’IPJ, et non sur une plate-forme participative comme beaucoup sont apparues depuis. Bref, l’IPJ affichait sur son site un compteur comme garantie de leur succès, compteur dont seul eux avaient la maitrise. Le conflit d’intérêt était patent. Je veux croire que mon billet eut malgré tout son petit effet car l’IPJ a vu rouge, ce qui est une couleur plutôt rare chez ses partisans. Problème : il ne pouvait rien reprocher à mon billet, qui était factuellement exact, et pour le reste, n’était qu’un jugement de valeur qui ne peut tomber sous le coup de la loi. Le débat continuant dans les mois qui ont suivi, sur mon blog, sur divers médias et sur Twitter, l’IPJ s’est mis en embuscade et a soudain porté à mes écrits plus d’attention qu’il n’en a jamais porté au code de procédure pénale, ce qui spoiler alert lui jouera des tours par la suite. Mais ceci est une autre histoire, qui fera l’objet du deuxième chapitre de notre saga.","pubDate":"Mon, 14 Jan 2019 20:18:00 +0100","url":"http://www.maitre-eolas.fr/post/2019/01/14/Eolas-contre-Institut-pour-la-Justice-%3A-Episode-1.-Le-Compteur-Fant%C3%B4me.","titre":"Eolas contre Institut pour la Justice : Episode 1. Le Compteur Fantôme."},{"source":"Journal d'un avocat","id":4578,"description":"L'affaire judiciaire m'ayant opposé à l'association ” Institut pour la Justice “, les guillemets sont importants car cette association n'est ni un institut ni pour la justice, cette affaire donc a donc connu un dénouement heureux après sept ans de procédure. Je suis au fil de ces sept années resté aussi coi qu'un de mes clients en garde à vue, laissant mes adversaires s'exprimer sur le sujet. À présent, pour citer le grand philosophe Jules Winnfield : ' Allow me to retort. ' Ce récit des faits se veut, comme à l'accoutumée ici, factuel. Je citerai les décisions de justice qui ont été rendues, sinon in extenso du moins l'intégralité des passages pertinents. J'y ajouterai mon commentaire, car je suis ici chez moi, vous en ferez ce que vous voudrez (si vous manquez d'idées, vous trouverez au fil de ces billets quelques suggestions sur quoi en faire), l'essentiel étant qu'à la fin, vous saurez tout. Cette saga aura lieu en cinq chapitres, qui couvriront l'affaire en ordre chronologique. Le premier, que vous tenez sur vos écrans en ce moment, rappellera le corpus delicti : pourquoi ai-je attiré l'ire de l'IPJ ? Ce rappel des faits est utile, vous verrez, car l'évolution de notre société en sept ans leur donne un aspect parfois prophétique. Le deuxième parlera de la phase à l'époque secrète : la plainte, l'enquête, l'instruction, et le premier faux départ avec une première audience avortée. Le troisième portera sur le jugement de Nanterre de 2015. Le quatrième, sur l'arrêt d'appel en 2017, et enfin le cinquième vous ramènera en douceur aujourd'hui avec les pourvois en cassation (car il y en a eu trois, vous verrez), et les conclusions qu'à titre personnel je tire de cette affaire. Ah ! vous vous plaigniez que mon blog végétait ? Vous allez avoir de la lecture, à satiété. J'espère d'ailleurs que ce sera l'occasion de relancer l'activité régulière de ce blog, les réseaux sociaux commençant à me fatiguer. Je sais, je le dis depuis longtemps, mais la motivation et l'inspiration sont là, mes enfants ont grandi et leur Switch me laisse à présent du temps libre, en somme, les étoiles sont alignées favorablement hormis un petit problème d’hébergement que je vais résoudre promptement. Et si je devais faillir, n'hésitez pas à venir me chercher par la peau des fesses sur Twitter. A propos de fesses, il est temps de commencer ce récit. Installez-vous confortablement, faites-vous une bonne tasse de thé (un Darjeeling First Flush sera parfait), et remontons le temps de conserve. En selles ! The year is 2011 Les plus perspicaces d'entre vous se souviendront que 2011 était l'année précédant 2012. Année d'élection présidentielle, le président en place, Nicolas Sarkozy, étant candidat à sa succession, et alors qu'il avait été élu sur une plate-forme politique modérée voire centriste (discours ouvert sur l'immigration, rappelant qu'il était Français de sang-mêlé, apaisé sur la laïcité, il avait même recruté quelques personnalités de gauche dans son premier gouvernement, sans compter un goût certain dans le choix de ses convives à déjeuner), il avait opéré un virage sécuritaire pour compenser des résultats économiques décevants. C'est d'ailleurs assez fascinant de voir comment à chaque fois que la droite prend un tel virage elle se prend une déculottée électorale et comment, malgré tout, elle commet régulièrement cette erreur avec la régularité d'un coucou suisse. Je pose ça là. Bref, Nicolas Sarkozy était vulnérable, et cette position l'a poussé à une fuite en avant, sur les conseils peu avisés, pardon du pléonasme, de Patrick Buisson. C'est dans ce cadre que l'IPJ, association que je connaissais déjà bien avant, et qui sous un fard pesudo-scientifique promeut des thèses sécuritaires réactionnaires que rien, jamais, n'a étayé, a lancé une offensive médiatique à l'adresse des candidats, en les invitant à adhérer à leur “pacte 2012 pour la justice”, en faisant miroiter que le ou les candidats qui s'engageraient à l'intégrer dans leur programme auraient leur soutien. Quand on est une association sans aucune reconnaissance scientifique dans le milieu universitaire, comment attirer l'attention ? Là, il faut reconnaître à l'IPJ d'avoir été en avance sur son temps : en diffusant sur Facebook un message appelant à l'émotion et à l'indignation, ne fournissant aucun fait mais se contentant d'une interprétation créative de la réalité, et se concluant par un appel à signer la pétition en faveur de leur pacte, à faire circuler ce message, et à faire un don (mais curieusement pas à en vérifier la véracité, mais bon on l'a dit : ce ne sont pas des universitaires). Et comme de nombreuses personnes de bonne foi ont été touchées par ce message, qui reconnaissons-le était émouvant, mais malgré tout ressentaient à la fin comme un malaise face à cette absence d'explications concrètes, ces personnes se sont tournées vers votre serviteur, sachant que chez moi, on trouvait des réponses claires et étayées sur des faits, fût-ce au prix d'interminables billets et de phrases trop longues. Le Pacte et la torche C'est ainsi que fin octobre 2011, j'ai reçu de nombreuses demandes me demandant ce que je pensais de cette pétition. Dans un premier temps, dès que j'ai vu qui en était à l'origine, je me contentais d'une réponse lapidaire (ça me jouera des tours, comme vous allez le voir ; après ça on me reprochera de faire des phrases trop longues…) sur le peu de crédit à y accorder. Mais au fil des jours, les demandes devenaient de plus en plus nombreuses, et émanaient de gens vraiment désemparés qui voyaient leurs proches et amis relayer ce message sur un ton révolté, et se sentaient fort dépourvus pour pouvoir leur répondre en quoi cet appel était factuellement erroné. Ça vous rappelle quelque chose, n'est-ce pas ? Je vous l'avais dit : ce dossier, pour ancien qu'il soit, est furieusement moderne. Et donc, à mon corps défendant, je suis allé voir de quoi il retournait exactement. La pétition en faveur du Pacte 2012 pour la Justice reposait sur un témoignage, celui de Joël Censier. Il reposait sur une affaire dont je n'avais pas entendu parler, mais, ai-je découvert par la suite, était un fait divers d'une grande importance dans le sud-ouest, autour du Gers, où les faits avaient eu lieu. Joël Censier, policier à la retraite, était le père de Jérémy Censier, 19 ans, tué d'un coup de couteau lors d'une rixe nocturne où il était intervenu pour séparer les belligérants. Le père était inconsolable, et je le comprends, et avait découvert que parmi les belligérants, il y avait des gens du Voyage qu'il avait eu l'occasion d'interpeller par le passé. Pour lui, sa conviction était faite : ce n'était pas un accident mais une vengeance. Voilà pourquoi cette affaire avait intéressé la presse locale. En août 2011, S. est mis en accusation devant les assises pour meurtre, les autres intervenants étant renvoyés pour des violences volontaires, la thèse de la vengeance ayant fait long feu au fil de l'instruction. Et en septembre 2011 un incident procédural se produisit : les aveux du du principal suspect, S., mineur au moment des faits, ont été annulés du fait de l'absence d'avocats en garde à vue, et l'intéressé, détenu depuis deux ans, a été remis en liberté par la Cour de cassation à la suite d'une nullité de procédure. Pour être exhaustif : l'avocat de S. avait demandé au président de la chambre de l'instruction de faire examiner l'affaire par la chambre de l'instruction conformément à l'article 221-3 du code de procédure pénale : le président de la chambre de l’instruction avait décidé de faire droit à cette demande, mais l'affaire n'avait pas été audiencée dans le délai légal de trois mois devant la chambre de l'instruction, entrainant une remise en liberté de droit. Il est à noter que l'arrêt est intervenu plus de deux ans après l'incarcération, et que de ce fait, le mineur a fait plus de deux ans de détention provisoire ce que théoriquement la loi interdit. Il aurait dû être libéré quoi qu'il arrive, mais du fait de cette nullité de procédure viciant sa détention, il a fait plus de détention qu'il n'aurait dû. Les mystères du droit. Mais tout cela n'avait que peu d'importance pour Joël Censier, qui ne voyait qu'une chose, celui qui avait tué son fils était libre et ses aveux étant annulés, il pouvait craindre qu'il s'en tirât. Notons que par la suite, S. s'est présenté librement aux assises pour y être jugé, et a été condamné en février 2013 a 15 ans de réclusion criminelle (la cour a écarté l'excuse de minorité), deux autres des belligérants ont été condamnés pour violences (l'un a quatre ans, l'autre à trois ans dont un avec sursis), les trois autres mis en cause étant acquittés conformément aux réquisitions du parquet. Comme quoi la justice ne semble pas si dysfonctionner que cela, mais l’IPJ a moins fait de publicité sur cet aspect du dossier. Toujours est-il que l'IPJ en a fait son porte-étendard, et avec quel succès. Car qui, franchement, oserait objecter quoi que ce soit à la douleur d'un père ayant perdu son enfant ? Eh bien devinez qui… J'ai donc rédigé un long billet, intitulé Attention manip : le “pacte 2012” de “l'Institut pour la Justice”, où je démontais point par point le procédé sur la forme, et le message sur le fond (car même si toutes les mesures du Pacte avaient été en vigueur, cela n’aurait rien changé au déroulement de l’affaire Censier, figurez-vous). Je n'y reviendrai pas, il n'est que de lire le billet de 2011. Comme d'habitude, un mensonge aura fait deux fois le tour du monde quand la vérité aura à peine mis son pantalon : je ne vais pas prétendre que mon billet a eu un succès similaire au Pacte. Mais il a quand même eu son petit effet, et l'IPJ a commencé à recevoir beaucoup de messages demandant à ce que la signature de leur auteur soit retirée de cette pétition, ayant le sentiment d'avoir été bernés. Ce nombre exact restera à jamais un mystère, l'IPJ laissant au fil de ses argumentaires entendre qu'il y en eût très peu pour dire que je n'étais rien ni personne, et en même temps qu'il y en eût beaucoup pour justifier leur demande de dommages-intérêts qui vous le verrez n'avait rien de symbolique. Bref, des signataires de Schrödinger. Et cet aspect éthéré des signataires était au cœur du problème : ce qui démontrait le succès de ce pacte, et était sans cesse mis en avant par l'IPJ, était le nombre de signataires, qui a atteint le million en quelques jours. Si je ne doute pas, pour les raisons que je vous ai données plus haut, de la réalité de ce succès, sa quantification m'a posé un problème de méthodologie : ce compteur de signatures était, à l'instar de la pétition, hébergé sur un site dédié appartenant à l'IPJ, et non sur une plate-forme participative comme beaucoup sont apparues depuis. Bref, l'IPJ affichait sur son site un compteur comme garantie de leur succès, compteur dont seul eux avaient la maitrise. Le conflit d'intérêt était patent. Je veux croire que mon billet eut malgré tout son petit effet car l'IPJ a vu rouge, ce qui est une couleur plutôt rare chez ses partisans. Problème : il ne pouvait rien reprocher à mon billet, qui était factuellement exact, et pour le reste, n'était qu'un jugement de valeur qui ne peut tomber sous le coup de la loi. Le débat continuant dans les mois qui ont suivi, sur mon blog, sur divers médias et sur Twitter, l'IPJ s'est mis en embuscade et a soudain porté à mes écrits plus d'attention qu'il n'en a jamais porté au code de procédure pénale, ce qui (spoiler alert) lui jouera des tours par la suite. Mais ceci est une autre histoire, qui fera l'objet du deuxième chapitre de notre saga.","pubDate":"Mon, 14 Jan 2019 20:18:00 +0100","titre":"Eolas contre Institut pour la Justice : Episode 1. Le Compteur Fantôme.","url":"https://www.maitre-eolas.fr/post/2019/01/14/Eolas-contre-Institut-pour-la-Justice-%3A-Episode-1.-Le-Compteur-Fant%C3%B4me"}]