[{"pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/11/company-pay-22-million-offering-free-credit-scores-turned-out-be-not-so-free","titre":"Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free","id":3194913,"description":"Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free wfg-adm109 November 19, 2014 | 11:12AM Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free By Lesley Fair We’ve brought law enforcement actions – dozens of ‘em. We’ve held workshops, issued reports, and sent warning letters. If it takes sky writing, tap dancing, and a float in a Thanksgiving Day parade, we’ll do that, too. But here’s what’s not going to happen. The FTC is not giving up until businesses get the message that: 1) Free means free; and 2) Key terms and conditions have to be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. A $22 million settlement announced by the FTC and the AGs of Illinois and Ohio with a national credit monitoring service advertising so-called “free” credit scores emphasizes that point. Another note for practitioners: It's the FTC's third case alleging violations of ROSCA . One Technologies and related outfits marketed their credit monitoring programs, MyCreditHealth and ScoreSense, through at least 50 sites, including FreeScore360.com, FreeScoreOnline.com and ScoreSense.com. Their strategy was simple. Buy advertising on search engines so their ads show up near the top when people look for phrases like “free credit report\" and then follow up with a persuasive pitch: “View your latest Credit Scores from All 3 Bureaus in 60 seconds for $0!” According to the lawsuit , the defendants failed to clearly tell consumers that if they availed themselves of those “free” services and didn’t cancel within seven days, the defendants would ding their credit cards for $29.95 a month over and over and over again. The complaint includes screen shots of the defendants’ sites, but before looking at them, take out your reading glasses because they’ll come in handy in trying to locate where the defendants chose to tell people about that $29.95 monthly fee. One line of fine print added in late 2012 said “Free 7-Day trial when you order your 3 Free Credit Scores. Membership is then just $29.95 per month until you call to cancel.” The first problem: The type was tiny – a fraction of the size of the defendants’ multiple use of the word “free.” The second problem: Why should consumers even have to be on the look-out for the cost, given that the defendants so prominently advertised it as “free”? A second purported disclosure appeared as an obscure hyperlink on the page where people typed in their Social Security number and birthdate.  Sandwiched between the logos of various security firms and a large color button that said CONTINUE was this less-than-crystal-clear statement: By clicking on the ‘Continue’ button, you agree to the Offer Details, to the Terms and Conditions, acknowledge receipt of our Privacy Policy and agree to its terms . . . The “Offer Details” link triggered a small pop-up that said, among other things, “At the end of the 7-day trial period, your credit/debit card will be charged $29.95 on a monthly basis until you call to cancel.” Another place the defendants put the information was on a side panel of the Payment Form in white letters on a grey background – a color combination one of the defendants’ own employees described as “known to cause seizures in lab rats.” According to the complaint, once people spotted the unauthorized charges on their accounts, the defendants didn’t make it easy to stop the billing.  And even when people asked for their money back because they hadn’t approved of the charges, the defendants denied refunds to many of them. The lawsuit alleges violations of the FTC Act, as well as the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and related state rules. In addition, the complaint is the third FTC action to charge violations of ROSCA, the Restore Online Shoppers’","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/09/ftc-seeks-public-comment-whether-update-rule-impersonation-government-businesses-address-platforms","titre":"FTC Seeks Public Comment on Whether to Update Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses to Address Platforms’ Role in Promoting Impersonation Scams","pubDate":"Fri, 25 Sep 2026 08:10:48 +0200","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","description":"The Federal Trade Commission announced today that is considering whether to update its Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses or take other action to prevent online platforms from engaging in ad-optimization practices that may be furthering impersonation scams. In an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to be published in the Federal Register , the FTC is seeking comment on the extent to which ad-optimization tools and services offered by social media, search engines and other digital marketplace platforms further efforts by scammers to impersonate legitimate businesses and government agencies using online ads.  “Free markets depend on trust, transparency and consumers’ ability to make informed choices. Impersonation scams—especially when amplified by digital platforms that profit from them—do more than rob Americans of their hard-earned money,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “They erode the very foundation that allows competitive markets to function. Today’s impersonation scams are no longer the work of isolated con artists; they are sophisticated, highly engineered operations powered by the same advertising and targeting tools that platforms sell to legitimate businesses. Consumers reported nearly $3.5 billion in losses to impersonation fraud last year, and the true cost is likely far higher. “The Commission’s mission has always been to safeguard the conditions under which competitive markets can thrive. Increasingly, consumers rely on a small number of dominant digital platforms for everyday transactions—from shopping, banking and travel bookings to accessing government services. Yet these platforms are the very places fraudsters seek out consumers, exploiting their trust while platforms profit from optimizing and disseminating scam ads. “Today’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking asks whether the Commission should require platforms to take concrete steps to prevent impersonation ads from ever reaching consumers. By exploring potential new obligations platforms would have to follow, the rulemaking aims to ensure that Americans participate in an online economy where truthful information guides consumer choice.”  Impersonation scams have topped the list of fraud complaints reported to the FTC by consumers in recent years. In 2025, the FTC received more than 1 million reports about imposter scams from consumers, who reported losing nearly $3.5 billion to such scams. In addition, online platforms play an important role in many scams. For example, nearly 30% of consumers who reported losing money to scammers in 2025 said they were first contacted on social media platforms, with reported losses reaching $2.1 billion. The ANPRM notes that impersonation scams have been amplified by search engines, social media and other digital marketplace platforms that profit from optimizing online ads for third parties, regardless of whether the third parties are legitimate. The ANPRM seeks comment on a wide range of topics related to the use of these ad-optimization tools and services and the proliferation of ads that impersonate businesses and government agencies including:  The financial incentives driving these platforms to offer ad-optimization tools and services, details on how each tool and service optimizes the content and delivery of the ad, and the steps platforms currently take to prevent the use of such tools and services for deceptive advertising The extent to which these platform ad-optimization tools and services constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices by furthering impersonation scams Whether these unfair or deceptive acts or practices are prevalent in the marketplace and whether the Commission should address these acts or practices by amending the existing Impersonation Rule, proposing a new separate rule or implementing non-regulatory Measures Measures the Commission could consider in crafting any new regulations, including vetting","id":3176041},{"source":"OCBF","description":"Les cas de fraude documentaire sont multiples et visent le plus souvent à falsifier un titre d’identité, une pièce d’état civil, un justificatif de domicile ou de ressources voire à utiliser de vrais documents pour un usage détourné. Cette typologie de fraude se place ainsi au 3ème niveau des industries criminelles dans le monde. Une […] The post Fraude documentaire : Sensibilisation et guide opérationnel – 5 juin 2026 appeared first on OCBF","id":2844041,"titre":"Fraude documentaire : Sensibilisation et guide opérationnel – 5 juin 2026","url":"https://www.ocbf.com/fraude-documentaire-sensibilisation-et-guide-operationnel-5-juin-2026/","pubDate":"Thu, 23 Apr 2026 14:04:37 +0200"},{"description":"Les cas de fraude documentaire sont multiples et visent le plus souvent à falsifier un titre d’identité, une pièce d’état civil, un justificatif de domicile ou de ressources voire à utiliser de vrais documents pour un usage détourné. Cette typologie de fraude se place ainsi au 3ème niveau des industries criminelles dans le monde. Une […] The post Fraude documentaire : Sensibilisation et guide opérationnel – 26 mars 2026 appeared first on OCBF","id":2748737,"source":"OCBF","titre":"Fraude documentaire : Sensibilisation et guide opérationnel – 26 mars 2026","url":"https://www.ocbf.com/fraude-documentaire-sensibilisation-et-guide-operationnel-26-mars-2026/","pubDate":"Tue, 10 Mar 2026 14:05:57 +0100"},{"source":"OCBF","id":1997180,"description":"Les tentatives de fraude sont toujours nombreuses et multiformes auprès des établissements financiers. Compte tenu des risques induits (de l’opérationnel au réputationnel en passant par la cyber attaque), il est important de bien appréhender les événements de fraude récemment subis par la communauté pour savoir anticiper le risque futur, mettre en place et optimiser son […] The post Formation Guide opérationnel de la lutte anti fraude – 9 avril 2025 appeared first on OCBF","pubDate":"Fri, 21 Mar 2025 09:09:22 +0100","titre":"Formation Guide opérationnel de la lutte anti fraude – 9 avril 2025","url":"https://www.ocbf.com/formation-guide-operationnel-de-la-lutte-anti-fraude-9-avril-2025/"},{"url":"https://www.ocbf.com/sensibilisation-a-la-fraude-documentaire-7-mars-2025/","titre":"Sensibilisation à la fraude documentaire – 7 mars 2025","pubDate":"Sat, 08 Feb 2025 09:26:00 +0100","source":"OCBF","description":"Les cas de fraude documentaire sont multiples et visent le plus souvent à falsifier un titre d’identité, une pièce d’état civil, un justificatif de domicile ou de ressources voire à utiliser de vrais documents pour un usage détourné. Cette typologie de fraude se place ainsi au 3ème niveau des industries criminelles dans le monde. Une […] The post Sensibilisation à la fraude documentaire – 7 mars 2025 appeared first on OCBF","id":1900052}]