[{"id":3248599,"description":"UT ref: UA-2026-000083-PIP In the Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber 28 October 2026 Before: Stewart Wright Judge of the Upper Tribunal Between: LC -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Anonymity Order Appellant: LC Respondents: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Tribunal: First tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) Tribunal venue: Scarborough Tribunal Case Nos: SC231/24/00181 Tribunal decision date: 29 August 2025 NOTICE: Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine. It is ordered , under rule 14(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal Rules) 2008, that, without the permission of this Tribunal, no one shall disclose or publish the name, or any part of the address, of the appellant in these proceedings or publish or reveal any other information that would be likely to lead to the identification of the appellant. The appellant shall be known as LC. Anyone who objects to this order may apply to the Upper Tribunal for it to be varied or set aside. A copy of this Order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales. REASONS This anonymity order is made on the application of the appellant. It is sought because “the appeal involves a disabled claimant and details of their disability are to reasonably be inferred from a prospectively publicised decision”. I have by a separate decision allowed the appellant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal. That decision will be published on public facing websites and, if no anonymity order is made, the appellant would be named in that decision. The principle of open justice is of fundamental importance to the justice system. An aspect of open justice is that parties’ names are made public. Derogation from this principle requires justification. Particular regard must be given to the importance of the right to freedom of expression, including the right to publish reports of cases. In this case, I am satisfied that it is necessary to derogate from the open justice principle to the limited extent of not naming the appellant. The appellant has ADHD and anxiety and depression and those features of his health and conditions need to be referred to in the decision on the appeal. In that context, I am satisfied that an anonymity order should be made because I accept a risk of harm could arise for this vulnerable appellant if he was to be identified in these proceedings, because those health details would then be in the public domain. The public interest in open justice and freedom of expression will still be served by this order and the final decision in this appeal being published online. The letters LC are not the appellant’s initials. The post LC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (anonymity order) appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","source":"Judgement Courts Tribunals England Wales","pubDate":"Thu, 29 Oct 2026 08:01:50 +0100","titre":"LC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (anonymity order)","url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/lc-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-anonymity-order/"},{"source":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries / L'Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit CALL/ACBD Blog","description":"Le français suit plus bas. We all have a few tricks up our sleeve when it comes to performing legal research. We sometimes share them with clients. And sometimes, we like to use those tricks to hunt down seemingly impossible to find material and wow them. Because nothing is “impossible” for law librarians. The CALL blog has started a new regular series of research tips and tricks. Please share your favourite or coolest strategies with Michel-Adrien Sheppard to have them published on the CALL blog. Nous avons tous nos trucs favoris quand il s'agit de faire de la recherche juridique. Parfois, nous les partageons avec nos clients. Et parfois, nous aimons les épater en utilisant ces trucs et astuces pour mettre la main sur des informations apparemment impossibles à trouver. Car rien n’est « impossible » pour des bibliothécaires de droit. Le blogue de l'ACBD a lancé une nouvelle série sur les trucs et astuces de recherche. SVP partagez vos stratégies les plus intéressantes ou les plus « cool » avec Michel-Adrien Sheppard afin de les faire publier sur le blogue de CALL/ACBD. Today: Finding Standards ( Susannah Tredwell, Manager of Library Services at DLA Piper (Canada) LLP , Vancouver ). It originally appeared on Slaw.ca on August 31, 2022. It is republished here with permission of the author. Standards, which “ establish accepted practices, technical requirements, and terminologies ”, are often referenced by acts and regulations; in order to be able to properly interpret a piece of legislation you may need to see the standard it is referring to. Frequently the fastest and most efficient solution (if not the cheapest) is to buy the standard, either in print or electronic format. However, if you’re buying a digital version it is important to be aware of how the standard is licenced, e.g. in some cases the person who bought the standard is the only person who can use it. For Canadian standards, the   Standards Council of Canada   (confusingly — for law librarians at least — abbreviated SCC) is a useful place to start. Standards are frequently referred to by a number (e.g. “CSA Z1008:21”) where the first letters indicate who issued the standard (in this case the   Canadian Standards Association ) , the middle numbers indicate the number of the standard, and the last number indicates the year of issue (i.e. 2021). Standards are frequently revised or replaced, so it is important to know which particular version of a standard you are looking for. Older standards can be more challenging to find. Your local public library may own some standards in print format so it is worthwhile checking with them. A number of Canadian standards are available for free; for example you can find the online collection of Codes Canada publications (including the National Building Code of Canada 2020, the National Plumbing Code of Canada 2020 and the National Fire Code of Canada 2020) at   https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/search/?q=NRCCode . Similarly the British Columbia Codes 2018 are available online at   https://www.bccodes.ca/index.html","id":3241472,"url":"https://www.callacbd.ca/CALL-Blog/12930018","titre":"CALL Research Tips & Tricks: Finding Standards / Trucs et astuces de recherche de l’ACBD: comment trouver des normes","pubDate":"Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:55:49 +0100"},{"pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 08:06:58 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/01/ftc-consumer-protection-year-review-offers-2020-vision-your-business","titre":"FTC consumer protection year in review offers 2020 vision for your business","id":3203247,"description":"FTC consumer protection year in review offers 2020 vision for your business lfair January 8, 2020 | 9:26AM FTC consumer protection year in review offers 2020 vision for your business By Lesley Fair They say hindsight is 20/20, but what about foresight? We’re not ones to prognosticate, but a look at notable FTC cases and initiatives from the past year suggests some topics likely to be top of mind in months to come. Here is a non-exhaustive list of issues in our 2019 rearview mirror and likely visible through the 2020 windshield. Consumer privacy. The FTC’s $5 billion enforcement action against Facebook made history and headlines, but the other notable part of the case is the monumental change the order mandates to Facebook’s privacy ecosystem. The Commission opinion in Cambridge Analytica reaffirms the proposition that like any other claim, a company’s privacy promises are viewed through the lens of established FTC consumer perception principles. A series of cases demonstrates the agency’s continued commitment to challenging false or misleading representations about businesses’ compliance with the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework. Another important development is the FTC’s proposed settlement with Retina-X . It’s our first action against a marketer of stalking apps – software that allowed purchasers to monitor the mobile devices on which they’re installed, without users’ knowledge. COPPA. Congress passed the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act to ensure that when it comes to the collection of kids’ personal information online, parents are in the driver’s seat. The FTC settlement with YouTube – brought in conjunction with the New York Attorney General – alleges that the company collected kids’ personal data without parental consent, in violation of the COPPA Rule . The $170 million civil penalty broke the record for the largest remedy in an FTC COPPA case, set months before in our $5.7 million settlement with Musical.ly , now known as TikTok. If you’re a YouTube channel owner, read a special Business Blog post for tips on determining if your content is directed to children. Data security. Is your company honoring its data security promises and taking reasonable steps to safeguard the sensitive information in its possession? The FTC, CFPB, and State AG actions against Equifax illustrate how consumers are injured when companies ignore reasonably foreseeable threats. The settlement, which totals between $575 million and $700 million – also reminds businesses that heeding warnings about known risks is more prudent (and cost-effective) than the alternative. Three threads tie together the FTC’s unrelated actions against LightYear Dealer Technologies and InfoTrax Systems . They both sell management software to specific industries. They both allegedly failed to take reasonable steps to secure their networks, resulting in damaging data breaches. And they’re both covered by similar new orders the FTC has introduced in recent data security cases. If you or your clients are players in the Internet of Things, the settlement of the FTC’s litigation against connected device company D-Link sends an unmistakable message: The future of the IoT marketplace depends on secure software development. Endorsements, certifications, and influencers. Why is the FTC concerned about the accuracy of endorsements and certifications? Because they’re material to consumers. The FTC says Truly Organics’ claim that its personal care products were “certified organic” lathered up a double bubble of deception. First, its merchandise contained ingredients that weren’t organic. Second, the company falsely claimed that its products were certified by USDA’s National Organic Program. Other FTC developments focused on the use of endorsements in social media. The FTC’s action against Devumi alleges the company sold fake followers, phony subscribers, and bogus","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"id":3201873,"description":"A clothes look at the RN database: Q&A with FTC staff lfair October 5, 2017 | 11:18AM A clothes look at the RN database: Q&A with FTC staff By Lesley Fair It’s not much bigger than a postage stamp, but the label on many textile, wool, and fur products provides important information, including fiber content, country of origin, and a company name or Registered Identification Number (RN). The FTC administers the RN system and industry members will want to check out recent upgrades to the RN website . With RNs and labels on our mind, we asked some common RN-related questions to attorney Josh Millard, whom we’d label as one of the FTC’s go-to people on the subject. First things first. What’s an RN? JOSH:   A Registered Identification Number (RN) is a numerical designation – the prefix RN followed by a set of digits – that identifies the company responsible for marketing, distributing or otherwise handling a product covered by the Textile, Wool, and Fur Acts.  Because some labels are small and some company names are long, the law allows U.S.-based businesses to use an RN as a “shorthand” identification. We think the upgrades to the RN website will make it even easier for businesses to use. How do I get an RN for my company? JOSH:   Apply online. FTC staff will review your application and email you typically within 1-3 business days. As soon as your application has been approved, you’ll receive your RN.  How much does it cost to get an RN? JOSH:   There’s no charge. Is it mandatory that companies use an RN on labels? JOSH:   No, you don’t have to use an RN. It’s perfectly acceptable to include your company name instead, but many companies prefer to use an RN because it takes up less space. The RN system has other benefits, too. For example, it lets people identify your business easily through the RN Search screen . Consumers or other industry members can type in the number and readily find your business. Our company doesn’t reside in the United States.  Can we get an RN? JOSH:   Only U.S.-based businesses can get an RN. If your foreign company manufactures or is involved in the advertising, distribution, or sale of a product covered by the Textile, Wool, and Fur Acts, put the company name on the label instead of an RN. Alternatively, you can label the product with the RN or business name of a U.S. company directly involved with importing, distributing, or selling the product when that’s the case. Going through our records we found we have multiple RNs.  Is that a problem? JOSH:   It’s not prohibited, but we no longer issue multiple RNs to a single company and encourage companies to cancel any extra RNs to simplify recordkeeping. Our headquarters has moved since we applied for an RN.  Do we need to update our application? JOSH:   Yes. If there has been a change to your business name, address, or legal status, please update the information in your RN registration.  An RN can be cancelled if a business doesn’t keep its information up to date, so it’s wise to check. The good news is that the upgraded RN website makes that easier to do. What if we choose to use a company name on the label, rather than an RN? JOSH:   You must include the full name your company uses to do business – in other words, the name that appears on documents like purchase orders or invoices. It can’t be a trademark, trade name, brand, or designer name unless that’s also the name under which your company does business. What kind of guidance does the FTC have for industry members? JOSH:  Threading Your Way Through the Labeling Requirements Under the Textile and Wool Acts is a great place to start, and the FTC’s Clothing and Textiles page includes links to brochures, cases, workshops and other compliance resources.","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:06 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/10/clothes-look-rn-database-qa-ftc-staff","titre":"A clothes look at the RN database: Q&A with FTC staff"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/11/setting-debt-parking-brake","titre":"Setting the debt parking brake","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:06 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","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","id":3201875},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/10/first-ftc-rosca-case-challenges-bogus-bogo-free-claims","titre":"First FTC ROSCA case challenges bogus BOGO and \"free\" claims","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 08:05:50 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"First FTC ROSCA case challenges bogus BOGO and \"free\" claims wfg-adm109 October 21, 2014 | 12:02PM First FTC ROSCA case challenges bogus BOGO and \"free\" claims By Lesley Fair It’s called ROSCA – the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act – and it prohibits marketers from charging consumers for an online transaction unless the marketer has clearly disclosed all material terms of the deal and received the consumer’s express informed consent. Your e-commerce clients will want to know about the FTC’s first ROSCA case , filed recently in Nevada. According to the lawsuit, Health Formulas, LLC and a tangle of related California- and Nevada-based companies and individuals – consumers may know them as Simple Pure Nutrition – pitched a variety of products for weight loss, muscle building, virility, and skin care. The defendants advertised diet supplements like Pure Green Coffee Bean Plus and RKG Extreme as a shortcut to drop the pounds: “Burn fat without diet or exercise,” “Extreme weight loss!” “Shed pounds fast!” “Super concentrated double fat burning,” etc. Among the defendants’ more colorful business names: Weight Loss Dojo, Longhorn Marketing (sorry, Texas fans), Black Bull, and Unleash the Thunder. But unsubstantiated weight loss claims were just the start. The FTC says the defendants lured people in with bogus promises of a “free” trial or deceptive buy-one-get-one (BOGO) offers. Then they tricked consumers into giving their credit or debit card information with the false implication that consumers had to “just pay shipping.”   Digits in hand, the defendants really went to town, allegedly signing consumers up without their authorization for a negative option program that billed their accounts over and over again, to the monthly tune of between $60 and $210. The FTC says the defendants violated ROSCA by using a negative option feature without providing clear and conspicuous disclosures, getting the consumer’s express informed consent, and offering a simple mechanism for stopping the recurring charges. The FTC’s complaint also cites the defendants’ hard-to-find and hard-to-understand fine-print “terms and conditions,” which consumers could reach only by scrolling through the equivalent of two printed pages and clicking on an obscure hyperlink. Assuming they found it – and that’s a big if – the typical “terms and conditions” document was 10 pages long. On some websites, consumers had to scroll down the payment page to see further fine-print disclosures about the cost of the products. The first sentence reiterated what consumers generally understood (“You must pay a shipping and handling fee of $4.95 for us to send you a full 30 day supply of Garcinia Cambogia Extract”) but it wasn’t until the middle of the paragraph that the defendants mentioned that the trial period lasts only 14 days, that it began when the items were shipped (not delivered), and that consumers would be charged after that. Other websites didn’t even include that information. According to the lawsuit, consumers who attempted to take the defendants up on their money-back guarantee were met with a series of undisclosed roadblocks. In addition to the ROSCA counts, the FTC says the defendants’ practices violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act by debiting consumers’ accounts on a recurring basis without their prior written authorization. What’s more, the complaint charges that the defendants continued to call people after being told to cut it out, in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule’s entity-specific Do Not Call provisions. The FTC says they also violated the TSR through a series of deceptive upsells. A federal judge has entered a temporary restraining order and the FTC is seeking to put a permanent stop to the defendants’ illegal practices. If your clients have ROSCA questions, the","id":3201052},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3200011,"description":"We can’t go for that (no can do) lfair July 17, 2017 | 11:38AM We can’t go for that (no can do) By Lesley Fair Of course, phantom debt collection – the practice of pressuring people to pay “debts” they don’t owe – harms consumers. But as an FTC complaint demonstrates, when phantom debt collectors strike, they could affect your company, too. According to the FTC , a Florida-based outfit engaged in a scheme to defraud consumers through the collection of debts people didn’t actually owe or the company didn’t have the authority to collect. The complaint charges that the defendants – Hardco Holding Group, S & H Financial Group, Dequan M. Sicard, and Daryl M. Hall (no, not that Daryl Hall) – violated the FTC Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. When contacting consumers, in many instances the defendants allegedly impersonated attorneys and threatened to have people thrown in jail if they didn’t pay up on delinquent payday loans – loans, remember, that many consumers didn’t take out in the first place and defendants didn’t have the right to collect. One tactic involved contacting people with a “case number” and directing them to dial a callback number. On the second call, the defendants allegedly said they were affiliated with named law firms and that the consumer had committed a felony, could go to prison, or faced arrest. According to the complaint , to boost the credibility of their threat of pending or imminent legal action, the defendants claimed to have the consumer’s Social Security number, bank account number, or contact information for family members. Afraid of legal repercussions, many consumers knuckled under to the demand for payment. The FTC says the defendants also told third parties that consumers owed money, a violation of the FDCPA. In addition, the complaint charges that the defendants didn’t disclose their identity to consumers, failed to provide proper validation notices, and used other false, misleading, and abusive tactics. Phantom debt collectors unquestionably injure consumers, but how could conduct like that affect your company? According to the lawsuit, when pressed to identify themselves, the defendants often gave the names or addresses of legitimate small businesses that had nothing to do with the purported debt or the debt collectors. When concerned consumers contacted those companies to complain, their employees got an understandably angry earful. From the FTC’s perspective, unrelated small businesses shouldn’t have their reputations sullied by others’ allegedly illegal tactics. A federal court in Orlando has temporarily halted the operation and frozen its assets. The FTC wants to stop the illegal practices once and for all. What can consumers do if they’re getting calls for debts they don’t owe ? File a complaint with the FTC. How can small businesses help protect their good names? Every now and then, do a selfie search with your company name and a word like “debt.” If you see consumer posts that suggest that a debt collector is illegally using your name – or if your employees are getting complaints about debt collection calls supposedly coming from your company – let the FTC know about it , too. In the meantime, businesses looking for FDCPA compliance resources can visit the FTC’s debt collection page for some – in the words of the other Daryl Hall (and let’s not forget John Oates) – “Adult Education.”","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 14:06:39 +0200","titre":"We can’t go for that (no can do)","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/07/we-cant-go-no-can-do"},{"pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:45 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/07/ftc-florida-ag-small-business-scrutinize-o-fishy-al-invoices","titre":"FTC, Florida AG to small business: Scrutinize “o-fishy-al” invoices","id":3198177,"description":"FTC, Florida AG to small business: Scrutinize “o-fishy-al” invoices lfair July 30, 2018 | 11:05AM FTC, Florida AG to small business: Scrutinize “o-fishy-al” invoices By Lesley Fair If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. But the same can’t be said for a mailer that looks like an official invoice. It could be an “o- fishy -al” offer that deceptively mimics the appearance of a government document. A case filed by the FTC and the Florida Attorney General challenges the practice of sending mailers that allegedly create the false impression that small businesses are required to buy labor regulation posters from the sender. Consider what defendants Starwood Consulting, also doing business as Corporate Compliance Services, and company president Thomas Henry Fred, Jr., sent to small businesses. The mailers – which include a Washington, D.C., 202 area code – are titled “LABOR LAW COMPLIANCE REQUEST FORM” and include the warning “Failure to comply with posting regulations can lead to fines up to $17,000.” The mailers include a “Business ID” and instruct recipients to respond by a certain date. Small businesses can’t miss the purported consequences of ignoring the letter: Your business is required by federal law to post a current compliant labor law poster in the workplace. Federal law requires that this poster be placed on the property of the business. Whether you have 1 employee or 1,000 you must post current employment posters in the workplace. The poster must also include information about workers compensation benefits. Pursuant to federal law 29 USC Sec. 999(i) & 29 USC Sec. 2005 penalties and risks of non-compliance with posting regulations can lead to potential fines of $17,000 per instance, for failing to post federally required information. Further, lawsuits can be tolled based on failing to display mandatory posters. . . . To obtain your Federal employment labor law poster, please detach the above coupon and return it in the enclosed envelope with your document processing fee of $84.00. The mailer continues: “IMPORTANT! FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS EXACTLY WHEN COMPLETING THIS FORM.” Those instructions include directions to detach the “payment coupon,” return it with the “document fee” of $84, and keep the bottom portion as the “official receipt.” The enclosed return envelope is addressed to “Corporate Compliance Services, Compliance Processing Center.” That’s a description of the mailer, but here are the facts, according to the FTC and the AG. First, the mailer isn’t from a government entity or affiliate. Starwood Consulting and its d/b/a Corporate Compliance Services are private companies in the business of selling those posters. In addition, despite the 202 area code, the defendants have no operations in Washington and posters similar to the ones the defendants peddle are available for free from the U.S. Department of Labor. What about those statutory provisions referring to “potential fines of $17,000 per instance”? In fact, neither of those citations has anything to do with labor posters. 29 U.S.C. § 999(i) refers to repealed provisions of the Young Adult Conservation Corps and 29 U.S.C. § 2005 addresses the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. According to the complaint , recipients of the mailer are often small businesses that have recently incorporated or established limited liability companies. What’s more, some businesses say they never received the posters they paid for. Others report they got second notices that they had to pay another $84 fee to get an updated poster. Despite a small “disclaimer” at the bottom of the reverse side of the mailer that “[t]his offer serves as a solicitation and not to be intended as a bill due,” the FTC and the AG say that business owners were misled and filed more than 250 complaints about the company. (According to the Better Business","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:45 +0200","titre":"First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2025/09/first-inform-consumers-act-enforcement-case-filed-against-online-marketplace-temu","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3198178,"description":"First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu kkrown September 5, 2025 | 10:00AM First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu Online marketplaces and third party sellers looking for a refresher on the INFORM Consumers Act should look no further than the recent settlement with Whaleco, Inc., which operates the online marketplace Temu. The complaint alleges the company failed to provide online shoppers with required information and tools. This is the first case brought to enforce the INFORM Act. The INFORM Act, which went into effect in 2023, seeks to make online transactions more transparent. Among other things, the law requires online marketplaces to collect, verify, and disclose certain information about high-volume third party sellers. ( Informing Businesses about the INFORM Consumers Act  has more on how the law defines terms, what’s required of online marketplaces, and the substantial penalties the FTC and state law enforcers may seek if online marketplaces violate the law.) In 2022, Temu launched its online marketplace in the United States, where consumers can view product listings on Temu’s homepage, through search results, and in gamified shopping experiences on the platform. According to the complaint, Temu violated the INFORM Act by failing to offer a mechanism for consumers to report suspicious activity — electronically and by phone — on the gamified product listings of many high-volume third party sellers and by failing to offer a telephonic mechanism on non-gamified product listings. The complaint also alleges that Temu did not post required identifying information about sellers on its gamified product listings or mobile site, and that Temu’s disclosures, when made, were difficult to find. According to the settlement, Temu will pay a $2 million civil penalty, provide a telephonic mechanism for consumers to report suspicious activity on listings, and make other required disclosures. Is your business covered by the INFORM Act? Make sure you:  Review the provisions of the INFORM Act thoroughly . Make sure you fully understand — and have measures in place to comply with — each of its requirements. Make required disclosures easy for consumers to notice . Required disclosures should stand out from any surrounding material and use plain language. Minimize or eliminate steps consumers need to take to reach required disclosures. Ensure required disclosures are available across all iterations of your platform . The INFORM Act mandates disclosures on all interfaces with product listings. And as your platforms evolve, regularly assess and update your compliance efforts. If your business sells through online platforms, check out  What Third Party Sellers Need to Know About the INFORM Consumers Act . This covers what sellers are impacted by the INFORM Act, what you can expect online platforms to require of you, and what information platforms must disclose about you to consumers. It also answers some questions you may have about the law. And if you spot a violation of the INFORM Act, r­eport it to the FTC using this  dedicated link"},{"pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200","titre":"Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/11/company-pay-22-million-offering-free-credit-scores-turned-out-be-not-so-free","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3194913,"description":"Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free wfg-adm109 November 19, 2014 | 11:12AM Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free By Lesley Fair We’ve brought law enforcement actions – dozens of ‘em. We’ve held workshops, issued reports, and sent warning letters. If it takes sky writing, tap dancing, and a float in a Thanksgiving Day parade, we’ll do that, too. But here’s what’s not going to happen. The FTC is not giving up until businesses get the message that: 1) Free means free; and 2) Key terms and conditions have to be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. A $22 million settlement announced by the FTC and the AGs of Illinois and Ohio with a national credit monitoring service advertising so-called “free” credit scores emphasizes that point. Another note for practitioners: It's the FTC's third case alleging violations of ROSCA . One Technologies and related outfits marketed their credit monitoring programs, MyCreditHealth and ScoreSense, through at least 50 sites, including FreeScore360.com, FreeScoreOnline.com and ScoreSense.com. Their strategy was simple. Buy advertising on search engines so their ads show up near the top when people look for phrases like “free credit report\" and then follow up with a persuasive pitch: “View your latest Credit Scores from All 3 Bureaus in 60 seconds for $0!” According to the lawsuit , the defendants failed to clearly tell consumers that if they availed themselves of those “free” services and didn’t cancel within seven days, the defendants would ding their credit cards for $29.95 a month over and over and over again. The complaint includes screen shots of the defendants’ sites, but before looking at them, take out your reading glasses because they’ll come in handy in trying to locate where the defendants chose to tell people about that $29.95 monthly fee. One line of fine print added in late 2012 said “Free 7-Day trial when you order your 3 Free Credit Scores. Membership is then just $29.95 per month until you call to cancel.” The first problem: The type was tiny – a fraction of the size of the defendants’ multiple use of the word “free.” The second problem: Why should consumers even have to be on the look-out for the cost, given that the defendants so prominently advertised it as “free”? A second purported disclosure appeared as an obscure hyperlink on the page where people typed in their Social Security number and birthdate.  Sandwiched between the logos of various security firms and a large color button that said CONTINUE was this less-than-crystal-clear statement: By clicking on the ‘Continue’ button, you agree to the Offer Details, to the Terms and Conditions, acknowledge receipt of our Privacy Policy and agree to its terms . . . The “Offer Details” link triggered a small pop-up that said, among other things, “At the end of the 7-day trial period, your credit/debit card will be charged $29.95 on a monthly basis until you call to cancel.” Another place the defendants put the information was on a side panel of the Payment Form in white letters on a grey background – a color combination one of the defendants’ own employees described as “known to cause seizures in lab rats.” According to the complaint, once people spotted the unauthorized charges on their accounts, the defendants didn’t make it easy to stop the billing.  And even when people asked for their money back because they hadn’t approved of the charges, the defendants denied refunds to many of them. The lawsuit alleges violations of the FTC Act, as well as the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and related state rules. In addition, the complaint is the third FTC action to charge violations of ROSCA, the Restore Online Shoppers’"},{"pubDate":"Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:08:58 +0200","titre":"FleetCor Agrees to Pay $100 Million to Resolve Administrative Action After Federal Court Finds that It Violated the FTC Act by Charging Unauthorized Fees","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/09/fleetcor-agrees-pay-100-million-resolve-administrative-action-after-federal-court-finds-it-violated","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":3160549,"description":"FleetCor and its CEO will pay $100 million to settle a Federal Trade Commission administrative action alleging that the company charged its customers, who overwhelmingly are small businesses, undisclosed fees in connection with their use of fuel cards that FleetCor falsely promised businesses would save them money. In a complaint first filed in federal court in 2019 , the FTC alleged that FleetCor Technologies Inc., now known as Corpay Inc., and its CEO Ronald Clarke imposed a broad array of unauthorized fees that its customers never knew about and did not agree to pay, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars and harming tens of thousands of customers.  In addition, FleetCor charged late fees to customers who had either paid on time or were prevented by FleetCor from paying on time. FleetCor also misrepresented the gas savings, fraud-control features, and fees associated with its fuel cards. “FleetCor deceived its small business customers by promising fuel savings that never materialized, while unfairly charging them hidden and unauthorized fees,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “In addition to the relief the FTC has obtained in federal court, this order will help return money to the customers the company took advantage of.” According to the complaint, FleetCor often waited to begin charging many fees until several billing cycles passed, making the fees less noticeable to consumers. The complaint also alleged that FleetCor’s invoices did not disclose that any fees were being charged, requiring customers to proactively view other account management reports. Even on those documents, many fees were obscured among other information or not listed at all. In 2023, a federal district court entered summary judgment for the FTC on all counts, finding that FleetCor had charged its customers hidden or otherwise unauthorized fees and misrepresented the gas savings and fees associated with FleetCor’s fuel cards. The court-imposed order permanently prohibits FleetCor from: billing a customer for any charge unless FleetCor has obtained the customer’s express informed consent and provided clear and unavoidable information about the charge; hiding material information about a charge behind a hyperlink; and making deceptive claims about its fuel cards. In 2026, a federal appeals court upheld the summary judgment against FleetCor on all counts and affirmed the permanent injunction against it.  The court affirmed the judgment against Clarke on all but one count and vacated the injunction as to Clarke.  As part of the settlement order with the FTC, FleetCor and Clarke will pay $100 million, which will be used to provide redress to the company’s business customers harmed by its practices. FleetCor and Clarke have also agreed not to oppose reimposition of a federal court injunction against Clarke.  The Commission vote to accept the consent agreement was 1-0-1. FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson is recused. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments will appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov. NOTE: When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to"},{"pubDate":"Fri, 07 Aug 2026 14:03:33 +0200","titre":"RDS and Bayswater Support Group -v- Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (anonymity order)","url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/rds-and-bayswater-support-group-v-secretary-of-state-for-health-and-social-care-anonymity-order/","id":3081876,"description":"Case number: AC-2026-LON-002515 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court In the matter of an application for judicial review 17 July 2026 Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Sheldon Between: The King on the application of (1) RDS (2) Bayswater Support Group (Claimants) -v- Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Defendant) and NHS England (Interested Party) Order Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12) Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply ORDER BY THE HON. Mr Justice Sheldon (1) Anonymity a. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998: i. the names of the First Claimant, his children and his former spouse are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; ii. the name of the chair of the Second Claimant, her children and any partner are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public. iii. the First Claimant and chair of the Second Claimant are to be referred to orally and in writing as ‘RDS’ and ‘RDA’ respectively. iv. The First Claimant and Chair of the Second Claimant are permitted to use ‘care of’ (c/o) addresses of the Claimants’ solicitors in the claim form and on any witness statements filed. b. Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the First Claimant or Chair of the Second Claimant, or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of any of them, in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings. c. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4): i. the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the said Claimants or any of the other individuals referred to in (a)(i) or (ii); ii. if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants or to the identification of any of the other individuals referred to in (a)(i) or (ii), a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time; iii. unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case. iv. Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party. (2) Interested Party : NHS England, named in these proceedings as an Interested Party, shall be removed forthwith as a party to these proceedings. (3) Permission : Permission to apply for judicial review is refused. (4) Costs : The Claimants must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £7,026.60. (5) Further provision as to costs : (a) Where the Claimants do not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below): (i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimants may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 4 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed. (ii) If the Claimants do not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order and the Claimants must pay the sum specified within 14 days of the date of this Order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)). (iii) If the Claimants file and serve a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above: the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages); if the other party files and serves on the Claimants submissions in response, the Claimants may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve","source":"Judgement Courts Tribunals England Wales"},{"titre":"Founders of Celsius Network Ordered to Pay $16.5 Million to Resolve FTC Charges","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/07/founders-celsius-network-ordered-pay-165-million-resolve-ftc-charges","pubDate":"Tue, 21 Jul 2026 08:04:33 +0200","description":"Alexander Mashinsky, the former CEO of cryptocurrency platform Celsius Network Inc. (Celsius), and his business partners, Shlomi Daniel Leon and Hanoch “Nuke” Goldstein, will pay a total of $16.5 million to resolve the Federal Trade Commission’s charges that they deceived users by falsely promising that deposits made to their cryptocurrency platform would be safe and always available. Mashinsky and Leon have also agreed to a ban on marketing or selling products or services that can be used to deposit, exchange, invest or withdraw assets. Similarly, Goldstein has agreed to a ban on marketing or selling retail products or services that can be used to buy, sell, deposit, withdraw, distribute or trade cryptocurrency. In its  July 2023 complaint , the FTC alleged that Celsius and its co-founders promised consumers that Celsius was “safer” than a bank or other traditional financial institutions and misrepresented that their deposits were safe because Celsius earned profits at “no risk” to consumers by making secured loans to other exchanges. The FTC says the company and its top executives deceived users by falsely promising them that they could withdraw their deposits at any time, that the company maintained a $750 million insurance policy for deposits, that it had sufficient reserves to meet customer obligations and that those in its Earn program could earn rewards as high as 18% annual percentage yield on deposits. They also repeatedly claimed that the company did not make any unsecured loans. The FTC, however, alleged that the promises were false and that its top executives continued to claim that customers’ deposits were safe days before the company filed for bankruptcy. The settlement orders with the FTC require Mashinsky to pay $10 million, Leon to pay $4.1 million and Goldstein to pay $2.4 million. In addition,  the order with Mashinsky ,  the order with Leon ,   and the proposed order with Goldstein   will also prohibit the Celsius co-founders from: Marketing or selling products or services that can be used to deposit or withdraw certain assets, as Mashinsky, Leon and Goldstein’s deceptive conduct led to enormous consumer injury; Making misrepresentations regarding the benefits of any product or service or any other material fact about any other product or service; and Violating the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, including by obtaining or attempting to obtain customer financial information by making false, fictitious or fraudulent representations; and Finally, the orders with Mashinsky and Leon prohibit them from disclosing nonpublic personal information about consumers unless the consumer first provides express informed consent. The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order with Mashinsky was 3–0 and was approved prior to the departure of former Commissioner Melissa Holyoak. The Commission votes approving the stipulated final orders with Leon and Goldstein were both 2–0. The FTC filed the proposed orders in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court Judge. The staff attorneys on this matter are Stephanie Liebner, Carlton Mosley and Sally Tieu of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer","id":3042974,"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"pubDate":"Wed, 01 Jul 2026 08:09:43 +0200","titre":"FTC Requires Amazon to Pay $2.25 Million to Resolve Charges It Knowingly Violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act","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","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":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":2818173,"description":"StubHub, the nation’s largest ticket exchange and resale ticket provider, will pay $10 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the company violated the FTC Act and the agency’s Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees by deceptively advertising ticket prices on its website without clearly and conspicuously disclosing up-front how much consumers actually would pay, including all mandatory fees. “The Commission’s Fees Rule makes it very clear that the total price of live-event tickets must be disclosed up-front to enable consumers to make fully informed purchasing decisions,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Price transparency is essential to a free and competitive marketplace. Today’s settlement underscores the Commission’s commitment to ensuring that consumers pay the price they are promised.” The FTC’s action against StubHub Holdings, Inc., follows a  warning letter the agency sent the online ticket platform in May 2025 stating that multiple prices displayed on its website appeared to be in violation of the Fees Rule. Under the Rule, which took effect on May 12, 2025 , it is an unfair and deceptive practice for any business to offer, display, or advertise the price of a live-event ticket without clearly, conspicuously, and most prominently disclosing the total price, which the Rule defines as “the maximum total of all fees or charges a consumer must pay for any good(s) or service(s) and any mandatory ancillary good or service.” Misrepresenting prices also violates the FTC Act. Today’s action also follows the Administration’s recent Executive Order on Ticketing , which includes a directive for the FTC to “take appropriate action . . . to ensure price transparency at all stages of the ticket-purchase process, including the secondary ticketing market.” According to the Commission’s complaint , in mid-May 2025—after the Rule went into effect—StubHub advertised its ticket prices without disclosing the full price consumers would actually pay by failing to include mandatory fees and to disclose the total price everywhere it displayed prices. Specifically, the FTC alleges StubHub failed to provide the total price for tickets—including high-demand National Football League tickets in the lead-up to when the NFL schedule was announced on May 14, 2025—in the first three pricing displays on its website. On the initial two pricing displays, in numerous instances, the advertised price did not include all mandatory fees, and StubHub did not disclose the total price. On the third pricing display, StubHub listed multiple fees and charges but did not disclose the total price. The proposed order settling StubHub’s alleged violations of the FTC Act and the Fees Rule requires the company to pay $10 million, which the company will use to provide monetary relief to eligible consumers through a settlement and consumer redress distribution program. The order also prohibits StubHub from misrepresenting the total price of any good or service; any fee or charge, including its nature, purpose, amount, or refundability, as well as why the fee or charge is being imposed; the final payment amount for any transaction; and any other material fact including those related to refunds or cancellations. The proposed order also prohibits StubHub from: Offering, displaying, or advertising any price of a good or service without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the total price; Failing to disclose the total price more prominently than any other pricing information; Failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose the amount of any fees or charges that have been excluded from the total price and what they are for, as well as the final payment amount—before the consumer agrees to pay for a product or service; and Violating the Commission’s Fees Rule. Within 90 days of the date of the order StubHub must provide redress to two groups of eligible","pubDate":"Fri, 10 Apr 2026 08:08:44 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/04/stubhub-refunding-10-million-fees-consumers-after-deceptive-ticket-pricing","titre":"StubHub Refunding $10 Million in Fees to Consumers After Deceptive Ticket Pricing"},{"id":2577895,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against Illusory Systems Inc. for failing to implement adequate data security measures, leading to a major security breach in which hackers stole $186 million from consumers. Under a proposed order settling the FTC’s allegations, Utah-based Illusory, which does business as Nomad, will be required to implement an information security program to address numerous alleged security failures and to return recovered money to affected consumers. “The FTC Act requires companies to take reasonable security measures,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “It’s important that companies live up to their security promises to consumers.” In its complaint , the FTC alleged that Nomad prominently touted its security in its advertising, claiming that it offered “security-first” services. The FTC, however, alleged that the company failed to live up to these promises by failing to: use secure coding practices; implement processes for receiving and addressing vulnerability reports and responding to security incidents; and utilize widely known technologies that might have helped mitigate consumer losses. According to the complaint, in June 2022, Nomad introduced inadequately tested code that included a significant vulnerability. Just over a month later, hackers began exploiting the vulnerability. The FTC alleged that Nomad failed to respond to the attack in time because of its inadequate security and incident response measures, which led to the loss of $186 million. The company was able to recover some money, but consumers lost approximately $100 million. Nomad was warned about the dangers of inadequate testing as well as the need to ensure it had adequate staff and security in place. The company, however, failed to implement basic safety measures that would mitigate consumer losses, the FTC alleged. Under the proposed order , Nomad will be prohibited from making misrepresentations about its security practices. In addition, the company will also be required to: Implement a comprehensive information security program that is designed to protect consumers from theft or other unauthorized access and address the security issues outlined in the FTC’s complaint; Obtain biennial assessments of its information security program by an independent third party and cooperate with the third-party assessor; and Return to consumers money recovered following the security breach that was not already returned to customers. The Commission voted 2-0 to accept the proposed complaint and order for public comment. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments will appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov. NOTE:  The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $51,744. The lead staff attorneys on this matter are M. Hasan Aijaz and Julia Horwitz with the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","pubDate":"Wed, 17 Dec 2025 09:50:37 +0100","titre":"FTC Will Require Illusory Systems to Return Money Stolen by Hackers and Implement an Information Security Program","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/ftc-will-require-illusory-systems-return-money-stolen-hackers-implement-information-security-program"}]