[{"description":"Keep FCRA in the foreground when the subject is background screening chundycz April 9, 2014 | 12:13AM Keep FCRA in the foreground when the subject is background screening By Lesley Fair When the talk turns to Big Data, part of the conversation is about all the public information available about people's lives – and how companies market it to prospective employers, landlords, etc.  Two cases just announced by the FTC  serve as a cautionary reminder to members of the industry that what they do may be subject to the long-standing consumer protections of the  Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) .  InfoTrack, an Illinois company, and San Diego-based Instant Checkmate will be paying civil penalties to settle FTC lawsuits that they violated the FCRA.  Is it time for an FCRA refresher at your business? Instant Checkmate marketed its reports as a way for prospective employers and landlords to investigate applicants.  For example, the company advertised that one of the “GOOD REASONS to get instant criminal checks on anyone right now” was to “check out tenants before they rent.”  It also used a Google Ad Words campaign to make sure its site appeared when people searched for background checks on nannies, babysitters, maids, and housekeepers.  What kind of information would buyers get?  Current and previous addresses, birth certificates, arrest histories, and marriage and divorce records, to name just a few examples. InfoTrack offered similar services to employers nationwide, including background screening reports with people’s driving records, education and employment information, criminal histories, and even records from sex offender registries. How does the FCRA come in?  The law defines a “consumer report” as a “communication of any information” by a consumer reporting agency (CRA) that bears on a person’s “credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living” which is used (or expected to be used) as a factor in establishing their eligibility for credit, insurance, employment, or other reasons outlined in the law. According to the FTC, what Instant Checkmate and InfoTrack were doing triggered the FCRA.  For example, companies covered by the law must follow procedures to assure their reports are as accurate as possible, must take steps to see that those using their reports have permissible purposes for accessing them, and must provide required User Notices explaining key protections for consumers.  The law imposes special requirements when CRAs provide reports containing public record information that could have an adverse effect on a person’s ability to get a job.  In that case, the CRA must either: 1) notify the consumer that it’s reporting the information in the public record; or 2) maintain “strict procedures” – that’s the language in the law – designed to ensure the reported public information is complete and up to date. You’ll want to read the complaints for specifics of where the FTC says the companies fell short, but one example cited in the lawsuit against InfoTrack offers an object lesson on why FCRA protections are so important to consumers – and how the consequences can be devastating when companies don’t live up to the law.  According to the FTC, the reports InfoTrack provided to prospective employers included information about whether a job applicant was on the National Sex Offender Registry.  The employer would provide the first and last name and the date of birth to help InfoTrack with its search.  The problem was that before the fall of 2011, no date of birth was available for many names on the Registry.  If InfoTrack’s search found more than one person with the same first and last name, it reported a “possible match” to employers and gave them reports that included several different people with the","id":3198181,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","titre":"Keep FCRA in the foreground when the subject is background screening","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/04/keep-fcra-foreground-when-subject-background-screening","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:46 +0200"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2025/09/first-inform-consumers-act-enforcement-case-filed-against-online-marketplace-temu","titre":"First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:45 +0200","description":"First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu kkrown September 5, 2025 | 10:00AM First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu Online marketplaces and third party sellers looking for a refresher on the INFORM Consumers Act should look no further than the recent settlement with Whaleco, Inc., which operates the online marketplace Temu. The complaint alleges the company failed to provide online shoppers with required information and tools. This is the first case brought to enforce the INFORM Act. The INFORM Act, which went into effect in 2023, seeks to make online transactions more transparent. Among other things, the law requires online marketplaces to collect, verify, and disclose certain information about high-volume third party sellers. ( Informing Businesses about the INFORM Consumers Act  has more on how the law defines terms, what’s required of online marketplaces, and the substantial penalties the FTC and state law enforcers may seek if online marketplaces violate the law.) In 2022, Temu launched its online marketplace in the United States, where consumers can view product listings on Temu’s homepage, through search results, and in gamified shopping experiences on the platform. According to the complaint, Temu violated the INFORM Act by failing to offer a mechanism for consumers to report suspicious activity — electronically and by phone — on the gamified product listings of many high-volume third party sellers and by failing to offer a telephonic mechanism on non-gamified product listings. The complaint also alleges that Temu did not post required identifying information about sellers on its gamified product listings or mobile site, and that Temu’s disclosures, when made, were difficult to find. According to the settlement, Temu will pay a $2 million civil penalty, provide a telephonic mechanism for consumers to report suspicious activity on listings, and make other required disclosures. Is your business covered by the INFORM Act? Make sure you:  Review the provisions of the INFORM Act thoroughly . Make sure you fully understand — and have measures in place to comply with — each of its requirements. Make required disclosures easy for consumers to notice . Required disclosures should stand out from any surrounding material and use plain language. Minimize or eliminate steps consumers need to take to reach required disclosures. Ensure required disclosures are available across all iterations of your platform . The INFORM Act mandates disclosures on all interfaces with product listings. And as your platforms evolve, regularly assess and update your compliance efforts. If your business sells through online platforms, check out  What Third Party Sellers Need to Know About the INFORM Consumers Act . This covers what sellers are impacted by the INFORM Act, what you can expect online platforms to require of you, and what information platforms must disclose about you to consumers. It also answers some questions you may have about the law. And if you spot a violation of the INFORM Act, r­eport it to the FTC using this  dedicated link","id":3198178,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3196242,"description":"Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't wfg-adm109 October 21, 2013 | 11:17AM Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't By Lesley Fair There are lots of nifty phone accessories, bottle holders, tow straps, pet items, and lanyards out there.  So a label that says the product is Made in the USA may help make the decision for some consumers.  When it bears the American flag and says “TRULY MADE IN THE USA,” that just might seal the deal.  But according to an FTC lawsuit , a lot of the “Made in the USA” merchandise touted by Logan, Utah-based E.K. Ekcessories wasn’t really made in the USA – turning the company’s claims from a Yankee Doodle Do to a Yankee Doodle Don't. E.K. Ekcessories sells a variety of outdoor equipment through popular retailers and on its own site.  In addition to the labels, the company touted its products’ U.S. pedigree with statements like “For 28 years E.K. Ekcessories has been producing superior quality made accessories in our 60,000 sq. ft. facility in Logan, Utah,” and “Our source of pride and satisfaction abounds from a true ‘Made in USA’ product.” To say an item is made in the USA, all or virtually all of it has to be U.S.-made.  In other words, all significant parts and processing must be of U.S. origin, and the product should contain no – or negligible – foreign content. That’s the standard explained in the FTC’s 1997 Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims.  But according to the complaint, in many cases, E.K. Ekcessories made “Made in USA” representations that were flat-out false.  In other instances, the FTC says the company slapped a label on a product without a reasonable basis for making the claim.  Both courses of conduct violate the FTC Act. Under the proposed order, the company can’t say a product is made in the USA unless all or virtually all of it really is made in the United States.  The order also bans other misleading claims about products’ country of origin. Given that other companies are selling the deceptively labeled merchandise, E.K. Ekcessories has to contact all distributors who bought or received products between January 1, 2010 and May 1, 2013, explaining the FTC’s lawsuit.  The retailers will be asked to pull marketing materials that say all E.K. Ekcessories stuff is U.S.-made or that describe a specific list of products as made in the United States, of U.S.-origin, or “Truly Made in the USA.”  For certain lines of products, they’ll get stickers to cover the inaccurate claims. You can file an online comment about the proposed settlement by November 21, 2013. The message for marketers?  First , it’s a good time to brush up on how to comply with Made in USA standards.  The Business Center has a dedicated Made in USA page to make that easier for you.  Second , given just how important many consumers take a Made in USA claim, companies that make that statement falsely or without a reasonable basis are risking law enforcement action.  Truly.","pubDate":"Sun, 04 Oct 2026 08:05:12 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2013/10/made-usa-avoiding-yankee-doodle-dont","titre":"Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't"},{"pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:36 +0200","titre":"FTC Secures Settlement that Protects Small Businesses from Illegal Price Discrimination","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/10/ftc-secures-settlement-protects-small-businesses-illegal-price-discrimination","source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués","id":3194908,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission secured a settlement agreement with Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits LLC, the nation’s largest distributor of wine and spirits, that will redress allegedly illegal price discrimination practices and make it easier for small businesses to compete against large chain retailers. The sweeping settlement covers nearly all Southern wine and spirits sales to the five largest chain retailers in 26 states. The settlement will also provide direct cash payments to harmed small businesses if an independent monitor finds that Southern violates the settlement order going forward. “This settlement marks a significant milestone for the FTC in its enforcement of the Robinson-Patman Act, which Congress enacted to empower small businesses to compete against large ones,” said Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “Small businesses are an invaluable part of the American economy and way of life. The FTC is committed to ensuring that all businesses, no matter their size, can compete on a fair and level playing field to serve their customers and boost the entire American economy.” The FTC’s settlement with Southern delivers a successful conclusion to the Commission’s first enforcement action under the Robinson-Patman Act in a generation. Under the terms of a proposed stipulated order filed by the FTC , Southern will face limitations on its ability to charge small, independent retailers higher prices for wine and spirits than it charges competing large retail chains.  The FTC’s settlement resolves a  lawsuit brought by the Commission in 2024, which alleges that Southern violated the Robinson-Patman Act by depriving small, independent businesses access to discounts and rebates that were available to large competitors. As alleged in the complaint, these pricing practices interfere with the ability of independent retailers to compete against large national and regional chains and big box stores. Under the Robinson-Patman Act, it is generally unlawful for sellers to engage in price discrimination that harms competition by charging higher prices to disfavored retailers that purchase similar goods. According to the FTC’s complaint, Southern charged significantly higher prices for sales of identical bottles of wine and spirits during the same time period to independent retailers as compared to competing large chains, like Total Wine, Walmart and Kroger, even when the stores were located a few miles or even a few blocks from each other. Southern engaged in discriminatory pricing via a variety of mechanisms, such as by offering discounts and rebates to large buyers that were inaccessible to small competitors and were not justified by differences in the cost of distributing products to different retailers, the FTC’s complaint further alleged.  Settlement Terms  To resolve the FTC’s complaint, Southern has agreed to a series of conditions that will disincentivize the company from engaging in discriminatory pricing and compensate independent retailers if they are harmed. Specifically, the terms of the proposed stipulated order target “paired” transactions where Southern sells a product to a chain retailer at one price while contemporaneously selling that same product to a nearby independent retailer at a significantly higher price.  Southern will be in violation of the FTC’s proposed stipulated order, if, among other conditions, the paired transactions involve:  Significant price discrimination (exceeding a maximum threshold based on state-specific operating costs) Recurring price discrimination (in the aggregate, exceeding $5,000 over a 12-month period) Where a set of discriminatory paired transactions meets certain specifications, Southern can resolve the violation by paying the independent retailer 1.5 times the full aggregated price-differential amount. If Southern does not redress the price discrimination, the FTC can bring an enforcement action, and, if the Commission"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","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","id":3192605,"titre":"Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2015/01/pink-slip-slip-first-ftc-cases-challenging-deceptive-car-title-loans","pubDate":"Fri, 02 Oct 2026 08:12:17 +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","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/07/founders-celsius-network-ordered-pay-165-million-resolve-ftc-charges","titre":"Founders of Celsius Network Ordered to Pay $16.5 Million to Resolve FTC Charges","pubDate":"Tue, 21 Jul 2026 08:04:33 +0200"},{"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"}]