[{"description":"i-Dressup and a data security mess-up lfair April 24, 2019 | 3:08PM i-Dressup and a data security mess-up By Lesley Fair Kids love to play dress-up, but parents wouldn’t want them rummaging through the attic or climbing to the top shelf of the wardrobe without permission and proper supervision. The i-Dressup.com website offered users – including children – a virtual way to play dress-up and design clothes without those potential dangers. But according to an FTC complaint, Unixiz, Inc. , the company behind i-Dressup, violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act in ways that created different kinds of risks. COPPA puts two separate sets of protections in place to help keep parents in control of personal information collected from their kids online. First, COPPA-covered companies must clearly disclose their information policies and get parental consent before collecting personal information from children under 13. Second, companies must provide reasonable and appropriate security for the data they collect. According to an FTC settlement, i-Dressup fell short on both COPPA requirements. The complaint alleges i-Dressup failed to provide sufficient notice on its site of the information it collected online from kids, how it used it, its disclosure practices, and other specifics required by the COPPA Rule. The company’s direct notices to parents were deficient, too. Among other things, they didn’t include the COPPA-required statement that if parents don’t provide consent within a reasonable time, i-Dressup will delete their online contact information from its records. Stick with the story because that failure turned out to be particularly troubling. In addition to letting users play online games, i-Dressup featured a community where they could “explore their creativity and fashion sense with unique personal profiles” and interact with others. To register, i-Dressup required people to submit a user name, password, birthdate, and email address. If the birthdate indicated the person was under 13, the email field changed to “Parent’s Email.” Once the under-13 user filled in the required fields and clicked “Join Now,” i-Dressup collected the personal information and sent a message to the address entered into the Parent’s Email field. The person receiving the email could consent by clicking the “Activate Now!” button. However, if the parent didn’t give consent, i-Dressup retained the personal information it had collected from the child online. The FTC says the company’s failure to delete that information violated Section 312.5(c)(1) of the COPPA Rule. In addition to violating COPPA’s parental consent provisions, i-Dressup allegedly violated the Rule’s data security requirements . According to the FTC, i-Dressup stored and transmitted users’ personal information (including passwords) in plain text. In addition, the company failed to perform network vulnerability testing of its network, even for well-known threats like SQL attacks; it didn’t implement an intrusion detection and prevention system; and it didn’t monitor for potential security incidents. The upshot? The company learned that a hacker had gained entry to its network and accessed information about 2.1 million users, including approximately 245,000 users who indicated they were under 13. To settle the case , i-Dressup and its owners will pay a $35,000 civil penalty. They’re also prohibited from violating COPPA in the future, and can’t sell, share, or collect any personal information until they implement a comprehensive data security program and get independent biennial assessments. In addition, they’ll have to provide the FTC with an annual certification of compliance. The message for sites and operators covered by COPPA is that an effective system of parental consent is only the first step toward compliance. Section 312.8 of the COPPA Rule also requires you to “establish and maintain reasonable","id":3203250,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/04/i-dressup-data-security-mess","titre":"i-Dressup and a data security mess-up","pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 08:06:59 +0200"},{"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","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.”"},{"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","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:45 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","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","id":3198177},{"titre":"Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2012/06/speaking-spokeo-part-2-companys-allegedly-bogus-endorsements","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 14:06:13 +0200","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,"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,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","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"},{"pubDate":"Fri, 02 Oct 2026 08:12:17 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2015/01/pink-slip-slip-first-ftc-cases-challenging-deceptive-car-title-loans","titre":"Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3192605,"description":"Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans lfair January 30, 2015 | 9:12AM Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans By Lesley Fair She’s got a competition clutch with four on the floor And she purrs like a kitten ‘til the lake pipes roar. And if that ain’t enough to make you flip your lid, There's one more thing. I got the pink slip, Daddy. Back in the days of the Beach Boys’ “Little Deuce Coupe,” the only risk to a car title – the pink slip – was when hot rodders bet them on drag races.The FTC just announced its first two settlements with car title lenders that underscore additional risks to consumers’ pink slips and wallets. What should other companies consider if they want to avoid crossing the yellow line? The complaints challenge allegedly illegal practices by First American Title Lending of Georgia, which operates over 30 locations in that state, and Finance Select, which does business as Fast Cash Title Pawn at five Georgia locations and two in Alabama. What’s a car title loan? It’s typically a high-cost, short-term loan secured with a consumer’s free-and-clear car title. The lender holds on to the title as long as payments keep coming in. Of course, if consumers don’t pay, the lender takes the car. Car title loans tend to run between $1,000 and $10,000. They have high interest rates – the typical APR can be a whopping 300% – and short repayment periods, sometimes only 30 days. Each payment after that first month is called a “renewal.” Given that many consumers who take out car title loans are in financial distress, it’s not surprising that loans may extend over a much longer period. According to the FTC, the average is more like eight renewals. In addition to holding the consumer’s car title, the lender charges monthly fees, sometimes as much as 25% of the amount borrowed per month. That means that after eight renewals, a consumer taking out a $1,000 loan could wind up paying $2,000 in fees. The FTC says the companies’ ads lured consumers in with promises of “zero” interest, but then failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose hidden conditions attached to those eye-catching deals. For example, First American Title Lending touted “0% interest” in big headlines on websites, billboards, newspaper ads, yard signs, and elsewhere. What consumers weren’t clearly told was that they’d only get the 0% rate if they were new customers, if they paid by money order or certified funds, and if they paid in full within 30 days. If it took them longer to pay – the norm in the industry – consumers would have to pony up hefty finance charges calculated back to Day 1 of that \"0% interest\" loan, as well as the fees that started on Day 31. According to the complaint, Fast Cash Title Pawn similarly advertised “0% Title Loans,” sometimes adding “1st 30 days 0%,” without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the substantial strings that were attached – including that if the consumer didn’t pay in full within 30 days, they’d have to pay the finance charge for the first 30 days in addition to charges that kicked in on Day 31.  The lawsuits allege that the companies’ practices violate the FTC Act.  The FTC says First American Title Lending also violated the Truth in Lending Act and Reg Z. Under the proposed settlements, the companies will have to clearly disclose all the qualifying terms associated with getting a loan at the advertised rate and what the finance charge would be after an introductory period ends. The orders also prohibit misrepresentations about material terms of any loan agreement. The FTC’s message to members of the industry is that they’re not flying (driving?) under the radar. Truth-in-advertising standards apply to car title loans, too. What's more, companies will be held to well-established principles of"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/04/ftc-seeks-public-comment-unfair-deceptive-fee-practices-online-food-grocery-delivery-services","titre":"FTC Seeks Public Comment on Unfair and Deceptive Fee Practices in Online Food and Grocery Delivery Services","pubDate":"Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:10:57 +0200","description":"The Federal Trade Commission today announced it is seeking public comment on whether a rule is needed to address unfair or deceptive fee practices in connection with the services provided by online food and grocery delivery platforms nationwide. As detailed in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to be published shortly in the Federal Register, the FTC is seeking written comments, including data, evidence, analyses, and arguments, to help determine how best to prevent unfair or deceptive acts or practices and to ensure that the agency addresses concerns from both consumers and industry. “Online grocery fees that are unclear, inconsistently disclosed, or revealed only at the last moment before consumers make a purchase distort competition and harm consumers,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Clear and truthful pricing is essential to competitive markets. The Commission’s enforcement track record suggests that consumers continue to face a suite of fees that prevent them from making informed comparisons. The Trump-Vance FTC is committed to addressing unlawful grocery delivery pricing that obscures the true cost of groceries.” Unfair or deceptive fee practices violate the FTC Act. The Commission recently brought several actions against online food delivery platforms for unfair or deceptive practices that violated the FTC Act. For example, in December 2025, the FTC announced a $60 million settlement with  Instacart over allegations it falsely advertised “free delivery” on consumers’ first three orders on the platform and then charged them service fees that were not disclosed until checkout. And, in December 2024, the FTC obtained a $25 million settlement with  GrubHub over allegations it misled consumers about the cost of delivery on its platform. These cases illustrate that hidden and misleading fees and charges are a recurring problem related to online delivery platforms, despite enforcement actions to protect consumers’ interests. Also, while numerous states have recently adopted laws requiring food and grocery delivery platforms to more clearly disclose fees and include all mandatory fees in advertised prices, they have not adopted uniform rules that apply to all food delivery platforms across the country. The ANPRM asks the public to comment on whether a rule is needed to prevent unfair or deceptive fee practices in connection with online food delivery services including: Total Price. Do food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose the total price for food or grocery items ordered for local delivery or pickup? Fees and Charges. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose the existence, nature, purpose, refundability, or recipient of any fees, charges, or other costs for a delivery or pickup order? Variable or Contingent Fees . Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose factors used to determine any fees, charges, or other costs that are variable or contingent on consumer selections, such as number or type of items bought or delivery location? Material Restrictions. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose whether fees, charges, or other costs are mandatory or optional, or any material restrictions, limitations, or restrictions that may result in additional charges or that may diminish the consumer’s use of the good or service? Price Differentials. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose whether the prices of items ordered are the same as, or different from, the prices of the same items offered in the store or restaurant? Personalized Pricing.  Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose whether the prices of items ordered are the same as, or different from, the prices of the same items offered to other consumers on the platform? Discounts or Promotions. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose material","id":2826725,"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"}]