[{"pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:45 +0200","id":3198178,"titre":"First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu","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","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"},{"pubDate":"Sun, 04 Oct 2026 08:05:12 +0200","id":3196242,"titre":"Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't","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.","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2013/10/made-usa-avoiding-yankee-doodle-dont","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"id":3195787,"pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 14:06:13 +0200","titre":"Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements","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","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2012/06/speaking-spokeo-part-2-companys-allegedly-bogus-endorsements","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/10/ftc-secures-settlement-protects-small-businesses-illegal-price-discrimination","titre":"FTC Secures Settlement that Protects Small Businesses from Illegal Price Discrimination","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:36 +0200","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"},{"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","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, 18 Sep 2026 08:08:58 +0200","id":3160549,"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/2026/07/founders-celsius-network-ordered-pay-165-million-resolve-ftc-charges","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","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,"pubDate":"Tue, 21 Jul 2026 08:04:33 +0200","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/2026/06/ftc-requires-amazon-pay-225-million-resolve-charges-it-knowingly-violated-fair-credit-reporting-act","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","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","pubDate":"Wed, 01 Jul 2026 08:09:43 +0200","id":2997627,"titre":"FTC Requires Amazon to Pay $2.25 Million to Resolve Charges It Knowingly Violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act"}]