[{"pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 14:08:41 +0200","titre":"Sign of the times? Protecting your company from B2B deception","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/12/sign-times-protecting-your-company-b2b-deception","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3204242,"description":"Sign of the times? Protecting your company from B2B deception lfair December 9, 2019 | 2:09PM Sign of the times? Protecting your company from B2B deception By Lesley Fair They may look like invoices sent to business owners for posters they may need to display in the workplace. But we think of them as un voices – deceptively worded solicitations that tried to sell companies posters that are readily available for free. A law enforcement action just settled by the FTC and Florida Attorney General offers tips on protecting your business from this form of B2B deception. According to the FTC and AG, four defendants with ties to Texas and Florida – Starwood Consulting, Starwood Capital, Corporate Poster Supply, and Thomas Henry Fred, Jr. – sent letters to businesses across the country with the goal of tricking them into paying $84 for posters about labor practices. To perfect their pitch, the letters had the look of invoices from government agencies or other authorities and warned recipients that they had two choices: 1) buy the $84 posters; or 2) face hefty fines. In fact, posters similar to the ones in question were available for free from relevant government agencies. But according to the lawsuit, many businesses forked over $84 under the misimpression that they had to buy them from the defendants. The proposed settlement in the case includes provisions to prevent the defendants from using similar tactics to injure consumers in the future, including a ban on unsolicited direct mail. Based on the defendants’ financial condition, the $6 million judgment will be partially suspended upon the payment of $1.2 million. What can other businesses do to protect themselves from B2B deception? What’s your sign? Investigate first. If you think you may need to post signs, check with the relevant government agency. But don’t use a phone number or URL listed in a solicitation you get in the mail. Do your research and go to the legitimate .gov website for more information. Consider free options. It’s true that certain agencies may require businesses to display signs on the premises about subjects like labor practices. But if a poster is required, most likely it’s available for free from the agency’s website. One helpful resource is the Department of Labor’s FirstStep Poster Advisor , which walks businesses through industry-specific posters required by that agency and provides the signs at no charge to employers. You can order them online, call the agency toll-free for copies, or even download them directly and print them out. Why pay for something your business can get for free? Alert colleagues in the business community . Are you active in a trade association or local business group? Enlist them to educate members about similar solicitations and other forms of B2B deception, including bogus office supply invoices and imposter phone calls that claim your company will be shut down if you don’t pay an immediate fee. Read the FTC brochure Scams and Your Small Business (also available in Spanish ) for tips on spotting B2B"},{"pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 08:06:59 +0200","titre":"i-Dressup and a data security mess-up","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/04/i-dressup-data-security-mess","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3203250,"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"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3203252,"description":"FTC sues American Immigration Center for claiming false government affiliation lfair October 16, 2018 | 12:16PM FTC sues American Immigration Center for claiming false government affiliation By Lesley Fair When the FTC warns consumers about government imposter scams, we’re usually referring to bogus calls that falsely claim to come from the IRS or some other official office. But as a case just announced by the FTC demonstrates, that’s not the only kind of false government affiliation that can deceive consumers. A $2.2 million settlement with American Immigration Center reminds other businesses of the dangers of conveying a misleading connection to a government agency. When consumers wanted to renew their green cards or apply for naturalization, where did they go? Online, of course, where they input terms like “USCIS,” “INS,” or “US Immigration” to search for the proper government site. According to the FTC, that’s how they ran across results with tag lines like “USCIS Forms – Easy Online Forms for Green Card & Citizenship.” A click took them to sites with the outward appearance of official government webpages. First, there were the URLs – usimmigration.us, uscitizenship.info, etc. Then there was the red, white, and blue color scheme, the Statue of Liberty, passports, and pictures of then-President Obama. What’s more, people looking for, say, Green Card Renewal Form I-90, saw links with the exact name of the relevant document. According to the FTC, people paid between $120 to $300 and input a substantial amount of personal information, all under the impression they were filing documents directly with a government agency. Except that they weren’t. Despite the appearance of those pages, consumers were actually on one of many commercial sites the defendants used to sell their “software wizard” to fill out government immigration forms. And the money consumers paid didn’t go toward government filing fees. It went straight into the defendants’ pockets. In addition to the $2.2 million judgment, the defendants have agreed to clearly disclose that: 1) their sites aren’t affiliated with the government; 2) people must separately file immigration applications with the appropriate government agency; and 3) people must separately pay applicable filing fees to the government. The proposed order also bars the defendants – principal Cesare Alessandrini and Forms Direct, Inc., doing business as American Immigration Center – from stating or implying any affiliation with the government. What’s the message for other companies? Avoid an affiliation conflation. Look at your ads and websites from the point of view of your target audience. Could prospective customers be left with the misimpression that your company has an affiliation with a government agency? Steer clear of any purported connection to a local, state, or federal government office. Consider the big picture. The complaint in this case cited the words the defendants used to convey claims to consumers, as well as what their websites looked like. That’s because, according to the FTC Deception Policy Statement , “The Commission will evaluate the entire advertisement, transaction, or course of dealing in determining how reasonable consumers are likely to respond.” That specifically includes visual imagery and the omission of material information. Wise companies bear in mind the FTC’s long-established “net impression” standard and exercise caution in drafting their copy, selecting graphics, and choosing what they say – and what they don’t say – to consumers.","pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 08:06:59 +0200","titre":"FTC sues American Immigration Center for claiming false government affiliation","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/10/ftc-sues-american-immigration-center-claiming-false-government-affiliation"},{"pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 08:06:58 +0200","titre":"Joint letters take new steps to stop illegal Coronavirus robocalls","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/04/joint-letters-take-new-steps-stop-illegal-coronavirus-robocalls","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3203246,"description":"Joint letters take new steps to stop illegal Coronavirus robocalls lfair April 3, 2020 | 1:57PM Joint letters take new steps to stop illegal Coronavirus robocalls By Lesley Fair Consumers hate illegal robocalls. And as the thousands of reports pouring into the FTC indicate, they also hate robocalls that exploit concerns about Coronavirus. In recent months, the FTC has taken innovative steps to take on not only illegal robocallers, but also companies that “assist and facilitate” their conduct. Just last week, FTC staff sent warning letters to nine businesses that provide Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services or other assistance to some of the entities that may be behind the onslaught of bogus COVID-19 calls. Additional letters just went out that reflect unprecedented actions in the fight against fraud. Warning letters were sent to three VoIP providers: SIPJoin, Connexum, and VoIP Terminator d/b/a BLMarketing. According to the letters, investigations have revealed that these companies transmitted calls offering fraudulent COVID-19 home testing kits or claiming that HVAC cleaning services will help fight the virus. But two things are different from last week’s warning letters. First, these letters were signed by the FTC and the FCC. The other interesting development comes in the form of a new strategy aimed at muting the dissonant ring of illegal robocalls. As the letters make clear, the three companies that received the warnings have 48 hours to stop routing or transmitting harmful robocall traffic from their clients making those claims or they will face an unprecedented “or else.” If the three companies don’t comply, the FCC will authorize all other U.S. voice providers to block all calls from them and take all steps that may be needed to prevent further transmission of unlawful calls from those companies. The agencies added that they will evaluate whether further action is warranted against the recipients of the letters. An interesting aspect of that “or else” message relates to another letter sent by the two agencies – this one to telecommunications trade association USTelecom. The letter opens with a note of thanks to USTelecom’s Industry Traceback Group for promptly identifying fraudulent COVID-19 robocalls and lists companies and providers that appear to be responsible for illegal calls – businesses the Industry Traceback Group helped to name. The letter also lets USTelecom know that if the three companies don’t comply, the FCC will authorize U.S. providers to block all calls from those companies and to take steps to prevent further transmission of unlawful calls from them. The letter added, “[W]e encourage and expect providers to take an active role in managing their networks and client relationships to protect consumers from harmful, illegal robocalls and spoofed calls,” and again acknowledged the work of Industry Traceback Group, describing it as “essential to combating the deluge of unlawful robocalls and protecting consumers.” Joint action by the FTC and FCC demonstrates just how seriously the agencies take the scourge of Coronavirus robocalls, but the letters also show that other companies have a critical role to play in the ongoing fight. No self-respecting member of the voice service industry – or any other business – should want anything to do with scammers out to exploit Americans during a time of national crisis."},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","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","pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 08:06:58 +0200","titre":"FTC consumer protection year in review offers 2020 vision for your business","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/01/ftc-consumer-protection-year-review-offers-2020-vision-your-business"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Root, root root for the regions lfair September 24, 2018 | 2:03PM Root, root root for the regions By Andrew Smith, Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection T his year eight major league baseball teams are celebrating milestone anniversaries – and so are the FTC’s regional offices. In 1918, the Commission opened the first three of its regional offices. Today, eight regional offices continue to knock it out the park on behalf of America’s consumers. So it’s only fitting that on this momentous day we acknowledge the regional offices’ century of pennant-winning performances. According to the Commission’s 1918 Annual Report, “In order to expedite the greatly increased work of the Commission . . . small branch offices were established in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco.” Over time, the FTC has added other locations for a current total of eight offices in seven regions. Regional staff work with the Bureau of Consumer Protection and the Bureau of Competition on investigations and litigation. But they are in a unique position to host roundtables and workshops in their communities; to coordinate with local, state, and cross-border law enforcers; and to build partnerships with consumer groups and small business organizations within their region. According to the scouting report, there isn’t a pitch they can’t hit. Here’s a brief look at each region’s box score with a focus on just a few of their many MVP contributions to the FTC’s consumer protection mission. East Central Region . In 1918, the Cleveland Indians finished just out of pennant contention, but the FTC’s Cleveland-based office works hard to bring home the W for consumers and small businesses. For example, ECR has brought a number of cases over the past two decades to protect small businesses in their area and around the country, including cramming, business directory, and unordered merchandise scams. Recently, ECR played a central role in Operation Main Street, the FTC’s recent initiative against scammers targeting small businesses. Midwest Region . Chicago fans may be divided in their loyalty to the Cubs and the White Sox, but consumers who lost money to scammers who used the services of a major money transfer company are united in their appreciation for the FTC-DOJ settlement that returned $586 million back to them. And just recently, MWR hosted the Commission’s workshop on cryptocurrency scams and took a lead role in Operation Tech Trap, a coordinated state, federal, and international effort to shut down tech support fraudsters. Northeast Region . Given New York’s connection to names like Huggins, Houk, Stengel, Berra, and Torre, it’s no wonder the FTC’s Northeast Region has particular expertise in coaching. But in NER’s case, it’s about companies that make deceptive “coaching” and money-making representations. The New York-based office also has been one of the FTC’s power hitters in addressing misleading practices in the affiliate marketing industry. And from their Big Apple location, NER has been a leader in educating consumers, particularly older Americans and small businesses. Northwest Region . Like their hometown Seattle Mariners, the FTC’s Northwest Region has a proven record of navigating the complexities on the field of play. NWR coordinated Operation Donate with Honor, a nationwide crackdown on fraudulent charities alleged to have conned consumers by falsely promising their contributions will help veterans and servicemembers. In addition, our team in Seattle regularly coordinates with Canadian counterparts to combat cross-border fraud. And they’ve been ahead of the curve on tech issues, bringing one of the FTC’s first internet cases in the 90s and more recently, an early online influencer action. Southeast Region . The Atlanta Braves boast a national fan base – and due to their expertise in fighting fraud, the FTC’s Southeast Region can be proud of its coast-to-coast impact,","id":3201877,"titre":"Root, root root for the regions","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/09/root-root-root-regions","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:07 +0200"},{"pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:06 +0200","titre":"FTC’s Lord & Taylor case: In native advertising, clear disclosure is always in style","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/03/ftcs-lord-taylor-case-native-advertising-clear-disclosure-always-style","id":3201871,"description":"FTC’s Lord & Taylor case: In native advertising, clear disclosure is always in style lfair March 15, 2016 | 8:37AM FTC’s Lord & Taylor case: In native advertising, clear disclosure is always in style By Lesley Fair It’s a fetching frock with spaghetti straps, an engineered paisley print, and an asymmetrical hemline. And it’s at the center of a law enforcement action against department store chain Lord & Taylor for its allegedly deceptive use of native advertising – the first case of its kind since the FTC released its Enforcement Policy Statement in December. The lawsuit also challenges Lord & Taylor’s “product bomb” campaign on Instagram as misleading. Lord & Taylor used an extensive social media push to launch Design Lab, its own apparel line aimed at women between 18 and 35. The strategy was interesting: Focus on just one item – that paisley asymmetrical dress. For the native advertising part of the campaign, Lord & Taylor signed a contract to have Nylon, an online fashion magazine, run an article about the Design Lab collection featuring a photo of the paisley dress. Lord & Taylor reviewed and approved the paid-for Nylon article, but didn’t require a disclosure about their commercial arrangement.  In addition, Lord & Taylor contracted to have Nylon post a photo of the paisley dress on Nylon’s Instagram page. Again, Lord & Taylor reviewed and approved the paid-for post, but didn’t require a disclosure. That was only part of the campaign. Lord & Taylor also recruited a team of fashion influencers, all of whom had two things in common: a sense of style and a massive number of followers on social media platforms. Lord & Taylor gave the dress to 50 influencers and paid them between $1,000 and $4,000 to post photos of themselves in the dress on Instagram on one specified “product bomb” weekend in March 2015 – the same weekend when Nylon posted its Lord & Taylor-approved photo. Style the dress any way you like, Lord & Taylor told the influencers, but in other aspects, the contract was all business. The influencers had to: 1) use the @lordandtaylor Instagram user designation and the campaign hashtag #DesignLab in the photo caption; and 2) tag the photo @lordandtaylor. Lord & Taylor’s reps preapproved each of the influencers’ Instagram posts to make sure they included the required hashtag and Instagram designation. The company also edited some of what the influencers planned to say. But despite the company’s punctilious approach to hashtags, handles, and the like, Lord & Taylor was curiously silent about other key aspects of the campaign. For example, according to the FTC, Lord & Taylor’s contract didn’t require the influencers to disclose that Lord & Taylor had paid them. Furthermore, none of the Instagram posts Lord & Taylor approved included a disclosure that the influencer had received the dress for free, that she had been compensated for the post, or that the post was a part of a Lord & Taylor ad campaign. And as the complaint alleges, Lord & Taylor didn’t add a disclosure to that effect to any of the influencers’ posts it reviewed. The Instagram campaign reached 11.4 million individual users, resulting in 328,000 brand engagements – likes, comments, reposts, etc. – with Lord & Taylor’s Instagram handle.  And the paisley dress sold out. The FTC complaint charges Lord & Taylor with three separate violations:  1) that Lord & Taylor falsely represented that the 50 Instagram images and captions reflected the independent statements of impartial fashion influencers, when they really were part of a Lord & Taylor ad campaign to promote sales of its new line; 2) that Lord & Taylor failed to disclose that the influencers were the company’s paid endorsers – a connection that would have been material to consumers; and 3) that Lord & Taylor falsely represented that the Nylon article and Instagram post reflected Nylon’s independent opinion about the","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"$88 million back for AT&T customers: An inside look at a refund program lfair December 8, 2016 | 11:15AM $88 million back for AT&T customers: An inside look at a refund program By Lesley Fair Chances are that you or someone you know will be among 2.7 million AT&T Mobility customers who will be getting a refund soon. The FTC is returning a total of $88 million to people who were billed for premium text message services they didn’t authorize. But even if the settlement doesn’t directly benefit you as a consumer, it offers insights for business people about the steps the FTC takes to get refunds back to consumers – and the seriousness with which we approach that stewardship role. The FTC settlement was part of a joint action with the FCC and Attorneys General from all 50 states and the District of Columbia to crack down on mobile cramming. The FTC alleged that third parties placed unauthorized charges for trivia, horoscopes, celebrity tidbits, etc., on the phone bills of AT&T customers with AT&T pocketing a sizeable chunk of the take – 35% or more. A portion of the $105 million was paid in the form of penalties to the states and the FCC. The remaining funds – initially, $80 million – were earmarked for a consumer refund program administered by the FTC. But a program of that size isn’t just a matter of cutting a quick check. There are required procedures to make sure the money is returned to eligible consumers. Step #1: The FTC hired a refund administrator to manage the complicated logistics. During the 6-month period in which consumers could file refund applications, we received more than 5 million claims from AT&T customers. (Some people submitted more than one claim.) Next, the refund administrator went over every single claim to make sure it was valid. The process was painstaking, but it was essential for maintaining the integrity of the refund program. Then came the complicated calculation of how the funds should be distributed. Some good news was that the FTC was able to add more money to the initial $80 million amount through assets recovered in related law enforcement actions against Tatto and Acquinity, third parties that added charges to consumers’ AT&T bills. In addition, the court required that an independent auditor review each step of the process – another important double-check to make sure the i’s are dotted and the t’s crossed. Once the auditor approved the final plan, the refund administrator prepared and printed checks and letters. What’s next?  Current AT&T customers should see a credit on their bill within 75 days. Former AT&T customers will receive a check, the first round of which were mailed today. If you get a check, be sure to cash it within 60 days. (By the way, the FTC never requires people to pay money or turn over their account information to cash refund checks.) Questions? Call the refund administrator at 1-877-819-9692 or visit ftc.gov/att.","id":3201874,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/12/88-million-back-att-customers-inside-look-refund-program","titre":"$88 million back for AT&T customers: An inside look at a refund program","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:06 +0200"},{"titre":"Setting the debt parking brake","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/11/setting-debt-parking-brake","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:06 +0200","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,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"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","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"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3201053,"description":"Spilling the beans: The anatomy of a diet craze lfair January 26, 2015 | 1:07PM Spilling the beans: The anatomy of a diet craze By Lesley Fair Some people call it the “Oz Effect” – the bump in consumer demand after a product or ingredient is featured on the The Dr. Oz Show. In a just-announced settlement, the FTC says defendants Lindsey Duncan, Pure Health LLC, and Genesis Today, Inc., took advantage of that phenomenon by deceptively touting the purported weight loss benefits of green coffee bean extract . The complaint recounts how defendant Duncan fueled a diet craze. The story has it all: a national TV appearance, a popular host, claims that people would lose weight without diet or exercise, and a comprehensive marketing campaign designed to take advantage of all of the above. The only thing missing, according to the FTC, was proof the product actually worked. As the complaint recounts, a Dr. Oz producer contacted Texas-based Lindsey Duncan, who had been on the show before, about an appearance to talk about green coffee bean extract. The lawsuit alleges that up to that point, Duncan had no familiarity with the ingredient. But that didn’t stop a senior member of the defendants’ PR team from responding, “Dr. Lindsey does have knowledge of the Green Coffee Bean. He loves it!” Later that day, the defendants contacted a manufacturer and placed their first order for the stuff. The FTC says the defendants used the time before the show’s taping to get their marketing ducks in a row. For example, they reached out to retailers like Walmart, telling them Duncan would be appearing on Dr. Oz to talk about clinical trials that purported to prove the stuff really worked. The defendants also bought numerous Google AdWords to steer consumers to their sites. When the cameras started rolling, Duncan claimed that people who used green coffee bean extract would lose 17 pounds and 16% of their body fat in just 12 weeks, all without diet or exercise. Duncan urged viewers to search for the product online, using phrases his companies had carefully selected to drive search results to their sites. After the show’s taping, when a Dr. Oz producer asked if there was a brand Duncan recommended, Duncan emailed a colleague, “This is either a set up or manna from the heavens . . . Please get Green Coffee Bean up on our site immediately!!!” Duncan then informed the producer that he “did some research” and that word searches for “green coffee bean” led to a site called purehealth100.com. “This looks like the best and most authentic product that I could find,” Duncan claimed. “The price is fair and they have zero additives.” But there were some facts Duncan didn’t tell the Dr. Oz people: that he and his company, Genesis Today, had created Pure Health and bought the search terms to steer people to that site. After the show aired, Duncan used his Dr. Oz appearance to fuel the green coffee bean extract craze.  According to the complaint, he posted links to the show on websites and used retail point-of-sale displays that trumpeted the product as a “New Health Discovery! As Seen on TV. The Dieter’s Secret Weapon.”  On his website, Duncan claimed: Normally, I don’t recommend “weight loss” supplements, especially weight loss supplements that claim “easy weight loss” or “fast weight loss,” but the Green Coffee Bean has truly amazed me. What has the media and the scientific community so excited about Green Coffee Bean Extract is that people don’t have to do anything different when taking this food supplement, they don’t need to exercise, they don’t need to diet, they just appear to drop pounds! Duncan also said, “A lot of people are asking me which product I recommend, and my fans know that I love Pure Health products because they always offer the purest of all the superfoods they sell.” One thing the complaint alleges wasn’t so pure was","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 08:05:50 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2015/01/spilling-beans-anatomy-diet-craze","titre":"Spilling the beans: The anatomy of a diet craze"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2010/09/full-disclosure","titre":"Full Disclosure","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 08:05:50 +0200","description":"Full Disclosure wfg-adm109 September 7, 2010 | 11:56AM Full Disclosure By Lesley Fair The FTC’s first law enforcement action related to the revised Endorsement Guides offers compliance insights for marketers.  In a proposed settlement with Reverb Communications, Inc. , the FTC alleged that employees of a public relations agency hired by game developers posed as consumers and posted reviews on Apple’s iTunes store without disclosing that the reviews came from people working on behalf of the developers. According to the FTC, in addition to giving their clients’ game apps high ratings, Reverb employees posted comments like \"Amazing new game,\" \"ONE of the BEST,\" \"[Company] hits another home run with [product name],\" \"Really Cool Game\" \"GREAT, family-friendly board game app,\" \"One of the best apps just got better\" and \"[Company] does it again!\" They didn’t disclose that the company was hired to promote the games and that it often got a percentage of the sales. The FTC alleged that these facts would have been relevant to consumers who were evaluating the reviews and deciding whether to buy the apps. The FTC’s proposed settlement, which names both the company and its owner, requires the company to take down the deceptive endorsements, and bans similar misrepresentations in the future.  Looking for more information?  Read The FTC’s Revised Endorsement Guides: What People are Asking","id":3201057,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"The FTC's Google settlement: What's the buzz? wfg-adm109 April 1, 2011 | 4:28PM The FTC's Google settlement: What's the buzz? By Lesley Fair “Sweet!  Check out Buzz.” “Nah, go to my inbox.” That was the intriguing choice facing Gmail users last year when Google launched Google Buzz, its social network. But according to a settlement announced this week by the FTC, the company violated the privacy promises it made to Gmail users and used deceptive tactics in the Buzz rollout. The story starts with Google’s privacy policy. From October 2004 until October 2010, Gmail users were told, \"Gmail stores, processes and maintains your messages, contact lists and other data related to your account in order to provide service to you.\"  On the subject of the choices users had about the use of their personal information in all of Google’s products, including Gmail, the privacy policy said, \"When you sign up for a particular service that requires registration, we ask you to provide personal information. If we use this information in a manner different than the purpose for which it was collected, then we will ask for your consent prior to such use.\"  According to the FTC, statements like that conveyed that Google would use information from people signing up for Gmail only for the purpose of providing them with email service and that Google would ask for their consent before using their info for any other purpose. So far, so good. But then came the roll-out of Google Buzz. The service allows users to share updates, comments, pictures, videos, and the like through “buzzes” made either publicly or privately to individuals or groups of users. When Buzz was launched, Gmail users were taken to a welcome screen that announced the new service and presented the “Sweet!” or “Nah” choice. If users clicked “Nah,” the FTC complaint alleges that their info was nonetheless shared in a number of ways. First, the user could still be “followed” by Gmail users who enrolled in Buzz. Second, if the Gmail user had previously created a Google profile, he or she could appear on the public Google profiles of Buzz enrollees who were following them. Third, a link to Buzz would show up on the list of links on the user’s Gmail page. If the user clicked on that link, he or she would be taken to the Buzz welcome screen and would be automatically enrolled in Buzz without any disclosure of that fact. In other words, users would be enrolled in certain features of Buzz even if they didn’t sign up. So much for “Nah.” The FTC’s complaint alleges that despite what it said in its privacy policy, Google didn’t use information from people signing up for Gmail just for the purpose of providing email service. Rather, the company used it to populate Buzz. Thus, said the FTC, the representations in Google’s privacy policy were false or misleading. Furthermore, the agency alleged that despite the promise in its privacy policy that Google would ask for consumers’ consent before using their information for another purpose, Google went ahead and used it to populate its social network without getting their permission. The FTC charged that was false or misleading and constituted a deceptive practice. The next part of the story:   The not-so-sweet results when users clicked the “Sweet!”","id":3200009,"titre":"The FTC's Google settlement: What's the buzz?","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2011/04/ftcs-google-settlement-whats-buzz","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 14:06:39 +0200"},{"pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 14:06:39 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/07/we-cant-go-no-can-do","titre":"We can’t go for that (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.”"},{"id":3199077,"description":"FTC recaps consumer complaint data for 2017: Who’s on the list? lfair March 1, 2018 | 5:17PM FTC recaps consumer complaint data for 2017: Who’s on the list? By Lesley Fair Once bitten, twice shy. That fundamental principle of human behavior is why reputable businesses that work hard to earn consumers’ confidence should support the FTC’s ongoing efforts to fight fraud. According to the FTC’s 2017 Consumer Sentinel Data Book , consumers reported losing a total of $905 million to fraud last year. That’s close to a billion bucks people won’t be able to spend on legitimate products and services from credible companies. That figure is up $63 million from last year, although the total number of reports received from consumers is down from 2.98 million in 2016 to 2.68 million in 2017. Topping the list that no industry wants to be on is debt collection, making up 23% of the total number of complaints. But there are two caveats: 1) that number is down from 2016; and 2) the high number of debt collection reports was due in part to reports submitted by a data contributor who collects complaints via a mobile app. Second on the list is identity theft at 14%. The injury to consumers came in two equally unpalatable flavors. Credit card fraud was the most common manifestation. Tax fraud was next, but the glimmer of hope there is that the total number of tax-related identity theft complaints fell by 46%. Winners of the dubious bronze medal were imposter scams , with consumers reporting financial losses of a whopping $328 million. Imposters wear many masks: “I’m with [big-name tech company] and your computer is riddled with viruses,” “Help, Grampa! I’ve been arrested and need bail money,” and “We’re from [government agency] and we’ll arrest you if you don’t pay us today.” Nearly one in five consumers who reported an imposter scam said they lost money to the fraud. For the first time, the Consumer Sentinel Data Book breaks out fraud losses by reported age groups and here’s a result that may surprise you: Consumers in their 20s reported losing money to fraud more often than those over 70. Among 20-somethings who reported fraud, 40% said they lost money. Compare that with the over-70 crowd, only 18% of whom reported a financial loss. But there’s a troubling aspect to that surprising factoid. When older adults did report losing money to a scammer, the loss was much greater. For example, people 80 and older reported median losses of $1,092 compared to $400 for those in their 20s. Wire transfers continue to be scammers’ preferred payment method and in 70% of the complaints we received, the fraudster contacted the consumer by phone. The top states for reporting fraud were Florida, Georgia and Nevada, while Michigan, Florida and California had the most reports about identity theft, per capita. Stats cats tell us that they find our state-by-state data dive helpful, so we’ve created a new webpage to make it easier to evaluate the information. The bottom line for business people: Educate.   Use your status in the community to spread the word to employees, industry colleagues, and friends about the latest forms of fraud. One way to stay in the know: Sign up for scam alerts from the FTC. Cooperate.  If people you know suspect that their identity has been compromised, send them to identitytheft.gov to create a personal recovery plan. (And remember that your company may have a legal obligation to provide identity theft victims and law enforcers with transaction records related to ID theft.) Report.   When you spot a scam, report it to the FTC . We’re talking about fraud directed to consumers and questionable promotions targeting small businesses. Your reports have helped the FTC and other law enforcement agencies put together cases against the con artists behind bogus business directories, office supply flimflams, and other forms of B2B fraud. Consumer Sentinel is an online database available to civil","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:24 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/03/ftc-recaps-consumer-complaint-data-2017-whos-list","titre":"FTC recaps consumer complaint data for 2017: Who’s on the list?"},{"titre":"Franchise Fundamentals: Taking a deep dive into the Franchise Disclosure Document","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/05/franchise-fundamentals-taking-deep-dive-franchise-disclosure-document","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:24 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Franchise Fundamentals: Taking a deep dive into the Franchise Disclosure Document lfair May 23, 2023 | 6:41PM Franchise Fundamentals: Taking a deep dive into the Franchise Disclosure Document By Lesley Fair Love at first sight may (or may not) be a real thing, but when it comes to investing your money, it’s unwise to fall for a franchise without first subjecting it to tough-minded scrutiny. The third in the FTC’s Franchise Fundamentals blog series walks through an essential part of that evaluation: an in-depth review of the Financial Disclosure Document (FDD) required by the FTC’s Franchise Rule . You must receive the Franchise Disclosure Document at least 14 days before you’re asked to sign any contract or pay any money to the franchisor or one of its affiliates. In fact, you have the right to the FDD once the franchisor has received your application and agrees to consider it. So speak up if you don’t receive it and ask questions – lots of them – as you review the FDD and any attached documents.   Image Indeed, the franchisor’s conduct regarding the FDD may raise some red flags about how they do business. Providing the FDD doesn’t establish that a franchisor is reputable – it’s required by law, after all – but if a franchisor doesn’t promptly provide this mandatory document, gives you an incomplete FDD, evades your probing questions, or tries to rush you through the process, it doesn’t speak well of their approach to legal compliance.  Assuming you have the FDD in hand, let’s consider some of the 23 required items line by line. Here are things to look for as you review the FDD. Franchisor’s Background (FDD Item 1) Item 1 provides background information about the franchisor and any parent companies, predecessors, and affiliates, including how long the franchise has been in business. It also lets you know if there are any legal requirements unique to the franchised business, like the need to get a special license or permit. This can help you understand the costs and risks you would be taking on. Business Background (FDD Item 2) Remember the old adage “People are known by the company they keep”? Well, companies are known by the people they keep, which is why Item 2 identifies directors, principal officers, and other key executives. Pay attention to their business backgrounds, their experience in managing a franchise system, and how long they’ve been with the franchisor. Litigation History (FDD Item 3) Item 3 lists information about prior litigation, including whether the franchisor or any of its executive officers have been convicted of certain crimes or have been found liable – or settled lawsuits – related to the franchise relationship. Lawsuits against the franchisor could mean it hasn’t honored its agreements or that franchisees are dissatisfied with its performance. Item 3 also says whether the franchisor has sued any of its franchisees in the past year. That information could suggest problems in the franchise system. For example, if a franchisor sued franchisees for failing to pay royalties, was it because franchisees weren’t successful and couldn’t make their royalty payments? Bankruptcy (FDD Item 4) Have the franchisor, its affiliates, or any of its executives filed for bankruptcy? Item 4 discloses that information and could give you insights into the financial condition of the business.  Initial and Other Fees (FDD Items 5-7) Items 5-7 go over some of the costs involved in starting and operating a franchise. That could include things like deposits or franchise fees (some of which may be non-refundable); what you’ll have to pay for initial inventory, signs, equipment, leases, or rentals; and ongoing costs, like royalties and advertising fees. A Consumer’s Guide to Buying a Franchise suggests more than a dozen other areas of financial inquiry, which should give you an indication about the importance of both getting in touch with your inner bean","id":3199079},{"pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:23 +0200","titre":"Nixing the Fix: Warranties, Mag-Moss, and restrictions on repairs","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/03/nixing-fix-warranties-mag-moss-restrictions-repairs","id":3199073,"description":"Nixing the Fix: Warranties, Mag-Moss, and restrictions on repairs lfair March 18, 2019 | 10:24AM Nixing the Fix: Warranties, Mag-Moss, and restrictions on repairs By Lesley Fair First, the bad news: That nifty purchase needs a repair. Now the good news for consumers: It’s still under warranty. But where can they go to get it fixed? Can the manufacturer restrict a consumer’s ability to go to the independent repair shop of their choice? Can the manufacturer use glue, non-standard screws, and proprietary diagnostic software that make it difficult for independent repair shops to fix things? Do limitations like these affect consumers’ rights under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ? That’s the topic of Nixing the Fix: A Workshop on Repair Restrictions , an FTC event scheduled for July 16, 2019 . Enforced by the FTC, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act helps consumers make informed buying decisions and gives them access to remedies if the widget starts to fidget during the warranty period. One key consumer protection under Mag-Moss is that the law prohibits manufacturers from conditioning warranty coverage on the use of particular products or services. Here are some of the questions FTC staff intends to ask at Nixing the Fix : What’s the interplay between repair restrictions and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act’s anti-tying provision, which establishes that manufacturers can’t condition coverage on the use of parts or services identified by brand, trade, or corporate name? Do repair restrictions affect the market for extended warranties and service agreements? What types of restrictions are consumers running into when they try to get their stuff repaired? Are manufacturers’ restrictions having an impact on small fix-it businesses? Are manufacturers using software that may render products obsolete or unfixable if consumers engage in DIY or go to a local repair shop? Are repair restrictions necessary to reduce the risk of physical injury or to protect manufacturers from liability for products improperly repaired by others? Do consumers understand the effects of repair restrictions? We’re also looking for empirical research and data about the prevalence and impact of manufacturers’ repair restrictions. For example, what can you tell us about code that disables products that have been repaired by someone other than the manufacturer, product designs that make third-party repairs difficult (like attaching batteries with glue only the manufacturer can remove), contractual post-sale or licensing restrictions, or proprietary diagnostic software and replacement parts? Please send us your research and data by April 30, 2019. Do you have suggestions about possible panelists? Email us at nixingthefix@ftc.gov . Nixing the Fix will take place on July 16th at the FTC’s Constitution Center conference facility, 400 7th Street, S.W., in Washington, DC. It’s free and open to the public. You can file public comments online and we’ll keep the record open until September 16, 2019. Follow the Business Blog for more information about the agenda and for watch-the-webcast instructions.","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Planning a social media marketing campaign? Read this first. lfair November 13, 2018 | 12:24PM Planning a social media marketing campaign? Read this first. By Lesley Fair It started as one of those “run it up the flagpole” ideas to enlist big-name gymnasts to promote a brand of mosquito repellent just as news stories about the 2016 Brazil Olympics were sounding warnings about the Zika virus. Public relations firm Creaxion Corporation and specialty sports magazine publisher Inside Publications used a variety of digital strategies on behalf of the brand: athlete endorsements, social media posts, “advertorials,” and consumer reviews. But according to the FTC’s complaint , their efforts violated established FTC advertising principles. Which of those strategies are you using? And are you avoiding legal pitfalls by making appropriate disclosures? Creaxion – an Atlanta-based marketing and PR company – was approached by client HealthPro Brands to help launch its mosquito repellent. They agreed Creaxion would produce a “strategic media relations campaign” that would be “tied to the worldwide outbreak of the Zika Virus.” Creaxion then contacted Inside Publications, publisher of magazines like Inside Volleyball , Inside Cheerleading , and Inside Gymnastics , to broker a partnership with HealthPro. You’ll want to read the complaint for details about the “Social and Digital Media Activation and Athlete Engagement” agreement between HealthPro and Inside Publications, but here are some of the things HealthPro paid for: endorsements by leading gymnasts, magazine “articles” featuring the repellent, the product’s placement in “Good Luck” gift baskets from Inside Gymnastics to top U.S. gymnasts, and social media posts touting the product by Inside Publications and athlete endorsers. According to the complaint, Creaxion president Mark Pettit acted as an intermediary between Inside Publications and HealthPro. Ultimately, 2004 Olympic gold medal gymnast Carly Patterson Caldwell agreed to become a paid spokesperson. She received several thousand dollars for social media posts and an Inside Gymnastics advertorial. (She decided not to attend the Brazil Olympics because of her concerns about Zika.) Olympic gold medal gymnast Jake Dalton also signed on and was paid for promoting the repellent to his fans and followers. The two gymnasts posted endorsements of the repellent on social media without disclosing their paid promotional relationship. For example, Ms. Patterson Caldwell said on Facebook, “I was definitely bummed to have to make the decision to not go to Rio for the summer Olympics because of the threat of the Zika virus, but working on starting a family and being safe and protecting myself was way more important to my husband and me! I am so thankful to have found a safe and organic product (FIT Organic) that will ease my worries as mosquito season approaches.” Similarly, Mr. Dalton posted on Twitter, “Getting Rio Ready! Not worried about Zika. Fit Organic has my back and body covered. Love the Fit mosquito repellent.” Inside Publications also posted and reposted statements on social media about the repellent, primarily through its Inside Gymnastics account, including some featuring Patterson Caldwell and Dalton. According to the complaint, Inside Publications didn’t disclose the spokespersons’ paid promotional relationships with HealthPro or that its own posts were paid ads. Nor did it disclose that the “Caring for Carly,” “The latest on Zika” and “Move Over Mosquitos” articles were really paid ads. The FTC also says Creaxion conducted an online consumer review program that reimbursed Creaxion employees and “friends” for buying FIT repellent and reviewing the product online without disclosing their affiliation with the brand. The complaint charges that the gymnasts’ statements about the repellent were falsely represented as the","id":3199074,"titre":"Planning a social media marketing campaign? Read this first.","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/11/planning-social-media-marketing-campaign-read-first","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:23 +0200"},{"pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:23 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/08/first-consumer-review-fairness-case-takes-promoters-big-bucks-amazon-claim","titre":"First Consumer Review Fairness case takes on promoter’s “big bucks on Amazon” claim","id":3199075,"description":"First Consumer Review Fairness case takes on promoter’s “big bucks on Amazon” claim lfair August 6, 2018 | 11:11AM First Consumer Review Fairness case takes on promoter’s “big bucks on Amazon” claim By Lesley Fair T he marketers behind a purported money-making promotion called Sellers Playbook appear to have skipped the chapter about complying with federal and state consumer protection laws. That’s the allegation in a complaint filed by the FTC and the Minnesota Attorney General . In addition, it’s the FTC’s first case charg ing violations of the Consumer Review Fairness Act. The roots of the allegations go back to another venture sued by the FTC earlier this year: FBA Stores, also known as Amazing Wealth System and Amazon Wealth Systems. The defendants in that case ran online ads and in-person workshops that claimed to reveal the secret s of making major money on Amazon. But few, if any, of the consumers who forked over thousands of dollars and implemented their “plug-and-play systems” earn ed the kind of cash the defendants claimed. Which brings us to Sellers Playbook, Exposure Marketing, Jessie Conners Tieva, and Matthew Tieva – Minnesota-based defendants charged with pitching the same kind of “secrets” to making big bucks on Amazon . According to the just-filed lawsuit , the striking similarities should come as no surprise. That ’s because defendant Jessie Tieva was a regular speaker at Amazing Wealth Systems’ workshops. How successful was she in getting consumers to sign up? The complaint charges that Ms. Tieva and her team generated more than $3.4 million in sales for Amazing Wealth Systems. And let’s be clear: We’re not talking about $3.4 million in sales by consumers who successfully implemented the system. We mean $3.4 million that consumers shelled out to the operators of Amazing Wealth Systems for which Tieva was paid a handsome commission. The complaint alleges that the new Sellers Playbook venture is, in effect, a copycat of the now-defunct Amazing Wealth Systems operation. The earning claims certainly have a familiar ring to them. Here’s how Sellers Playbook touted their “opportunity”: “Holy cow, guys. That’s when you start seeing the returns of what we want you to have, $20,000 a month,” “Potential Net Profit: $1,287,463.38,” “Starting with $1000...1 year later over $210,000,” and “How many of you would like to learn how to turn a $5- to $10,000 investment into a $25- to a $1.2 million return with your investment? Yeah. And you’re going to learn those strategies before you leave here today. There are a few other things Amazon Wealth Systems and Sellers Playbook have in common: 1) Neither company has any affiliation with Amazon; and 2) Both companies charged consumers hundreds of dollars – or even hefty five-figure fees – to sign up. Of course, few consumers make the kind of earnings the defendants claimed. According to the complaint, many of the webpages promoting Sellers Playbook contained an inconspicuous earnings disclaimer in grey near the bottom of the page. What’s more, at a live event, the defendants briefly displayed this slide, which one of the presenters downplayed with this statement: “That’s why they have us do this again. It makes the lawyers happy, disclaimers. But you got to do your part. Money’s not going to fall from the sky. But as long as you do a part, it’s going to happen.” T he complaint challenges the defendants’ earning claims as false or unsubstantiated under FTC law and the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act. What’s more, the lawsuit alleges multiple violations of the FTC’s Business Opportunity Rule . The FTC and the AG also charge that provisions in the defendants’ form contracts try to restrict consumers’ ability to post reviews of their products, services, or conduct , in violation of the Consumer Review Fairness","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:46 +0200","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","id":3198181,"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","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"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":"FTC, Florida AG to small business: Scrutinize “o-fishy-al” invoices","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/07/ftc-florida-ag-small-business-scrutinize-o-fishy-al-invoices"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3197414,"description":"FTC challenges Online Trading Academy’s money-making claims lfair February 12, 2020 | 4:35PM FTC challenges Online Trading Academy’s money-making claims By Lesley Fair Ads for health products often target Boomer Consumers, but those aren’t the only claims pitched to people looking toward retirement. An FTC action alleges a company called Online Trading Academy has taken in more than $370 million by gearing its deceptive representations to that demographic. In addition, the complaint alleges violations of the Consumer Review Fairness Act. According to the FTC, the California-based operation, related companies, and three individual defendants advertise a “patented strategy” that consumers can apply “to any asset class including stocks, options, futures and currencies” to rake in big money. They claim their “training programs” – with price tags as high as $50,000 – will teach consumers how to “invest like the pros on Wall Street.” ”No matter your experience and goals,” people were told the defendants’ “proven” strategy was “designed to make money in any market, whether it’s going up or down.” The complaint recounts the process the defendants use to attract consumers through TV and radio ads, online promotions, and direct mail. First comes an in-person “preview” seminar. Next, people pay $299 for a three-day “orientation.” That’s where the defendants urge attendees to sign up for seminars costing thousands more. The defendants assign each attendee an “Education Counselor” – a/k/a salesperson working on commission – who follows up by phone or email. According to the complaint, the defendants train their Education Counselors not to “look like, act like or sound like, a traditional salesperson,” but instead to take on a “role” and lead consumers through “The Pain Funnel,” Q&A designed to overcome consumer qualms. To get people to sign up for more seminars, the defendants routinely offer to finance all or part of the cost with loans at 18%, with the promise to forgive the interest if the consumer pays the total off within six months. The FTC says that in some instances, the defendants lead buyers to believe they’ll be able to repay the loan quickly with money they’ll make using that “patented strategy.” So how much does Online Trading Academy say consumers will earn? A central theme of their pitch is “You don’t have to work on Wall Street to make money like Wall Street.” Infomercials feature purchasers claiming that “in three hours I made $12,000” or “I made $32,000 in less than seven trading days.” In a YouTube video, a retiree says he made “$40,000 in a single trade.” In addition, a speaker at a live event claimed consumers “could potentially make $50,000 of annual income with an account size as low as $5,000” because Online Trading Academy has “a patent on the fact that you can time the markets,” which “gives us the ability to know when to get in and when to get out, long-term and short-term.” Other speakers – including some of the named defendants – paint a picture of lavish lifestyles filled with international travel, a “super luxury car” every year, and homes in areas where kids have “live-in nannies, cooks, gardeners.” One speaker said the money he made using Online Trading Academy’s strategy allows him to live in an enclave so exclusive that a neighbor, a renowned Olympic gold medalist, taught his daughter to swim. But the facts paint a different picture. The FTC alleges the defendants don’t systematically collect data sufficient to substantiate their earnings claims. But even the evidence they do have gave them good reason to know their representations are deceptive. For starters, according to the FTC, the defendants know that few consumers who","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:07:09 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/02/ftc-challenges-online-trading-academys-money-making-claims","titre":"FTC challenges Online Trading Academy’s money-making claims"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3197408,"description":"How an “invention promotion” outfit demoted the truth lfair September 13, 2017 | 11:15AM How an “invention promotion” outfit demoted the truth By Lesley Fair It sounds like there was some “inventing” going on at Florida-based invention promotion firm World Patent Marketing, but a Preliminary Injunction in a case brought by the FTC suggests it wasn’t the kind that unsuspecting consumers bargained for when they forked over millions of dollars based on the defendants’ misleading promises about patenting and promoting their products. For FTC watchers, the opinion is a page-turner from start to finish. We’ll focus on just a few of the claims the company “invented.” The defendants’ initial business model involved online ads that induced people to submit their product ideas. Salespeople responded, telling interested consumers that World Patent Marketing’s “review team” was researching the proposal because “the company is so selective with the ideas they choose to work with.” After a bit of a wait, salespeople called the would-be entrepreneur back to say: We had our final meeting with the Review Team regarding your idea. And basically from all the research that’s been done on [your idea], the research tells us there’s definitely potential to patent your idea. Because of that, I have the green light from the company to let you know that WPM wants to be a part of your new product idea and help you to protect it and bring it to the commercial marketplace. So, first of all congratulations! . . . The company loved your idea! They think it has a lot of potential. Especially the Sr. Product Director, who is in charge of which ideas are considered for the upcoming trade show. He sees some good opportunities ahead. But as the U.S. District Court concluded, those salespeople were reading the pitch from a script. In fact, “there is no evidence that WPM ever had a review team or rejected a large number of ideas.” What about the company’s “Global Invention Royalty Analysis” containing a marketability study created by a “Harvard University & MIT Research Team”? Despite the defendants’ claim that the “University” had given “the green light to continue,” the Court concluded that the defendants didn’t have a relationship with Harvard, MIT, or any other college. The defendants’ malarkey induced many consumers to pay between $9,000 and $65,000 for a “10 Point Patent Protection & Publicity Commitment.” (The pricier packages promised a “global patent.”) When consumers asked for updates, the defendants strung them along. Behind the scenes, the picture was less rosy because even when the company’s contract patent agents submitted applications to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the PTO typically rejected them as deficient. In addition to patent services, the defendants claimed to offer product development and marketing know-how, touting that “some of the world’s most respected brands trust World Patent Marketing,” including, for example, Target. The FTC isn’t the only one to say that was balderdash. A representative for Target testified that the defendants had no relationship whatsoever with the national retailer. The Court also cited misrepresentations regarding purported “success stories,” licensing and manufacturing agreements, and an “Invention Team Advisory Board” with big-name members who didn’t actually advise the company or review invention proposals. One anecdote is particularly telling. When an undercover FTC investigator contacted the company, the salesperson claimed that the History Channel had run a “whole segment” on World Patent Marketing. The truth? The defendants paid $17,000 to air their own ad on the channel. It ran once – at 6:00 AM on January 29, 2015. Not surprisingly, consumers started to speak up when their hefty cash outlays","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:07:08 +0200","titre":"How an “invention promotion” outfit demoted the truth","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/09/how-invention-promotion-outfit-demoted-truth"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/08/stick-security-require-secure-passwords-authentication","titre":"Stick with Security: Require secure passwords and authentication","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:07:08 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Stick with Security: Require secure passwords and authentication lfair August 11, 2017 | 10:47AM Stick with Security: Require secure passwords and authentication By Thomas B. Pahl, Acting Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection To make it harder for hackers to bluff their way onto a computer network, careful companies follow the advice of Start with Security and require strong authentication practices . We’ve considered FTC settlements, closed investigations, and the questions we get from businesses about implementing good authentication “hygiene.” Here are some tips on using effective authentication procedures to help safeguard your network. Insist on long, complex, and unique passwords. A password’s very reason for being is to be easy for a user to remember, but hard for a fraudster to figure out. Obvious choices like ABCABC, 121212, or qwerty are the digital equivalent of a “hack me” sign. Furthermore, experts have determined that passphrases or longer passwords are generally harder to crack. The smarter strategy is for companies to think through their standards, implement minimum requirements, and educate users about how to create stronger passwords. Also, when you install software, applications, or hardware on your network, computers, or devices, change the default password immediately. And if you design products that require consumers to use a password, configure the initial set-up so they have to change the default password. Example: A staff member attempts to select payroll as the password for the database that includes employee payroll information. The company sets up its system to reject an obvious choice like that. Example: To access the corporate network, a business allows employees to type in their username and a shared password common to everyone who works there. Employees are also allowed to use that shared password to access other services on the system, some of which contain sensitive personal information. The more prudent policy would be to require strong, unique passwords for each employee and to insist that they use different passwords to access different applications. Example: At a staff meeting, a company’s IT manager offers tips for employees about good password hygiene. She explains that passphrases or longer passwords are better than short passwords based on standard dictionary words or well-known information (for example, a child’s name, a pet, a birthday, or a favorite sports team). By establishing a more secure corporate password standard and educating employees about implementing it, the IT manager is taking a step to help her company reduce the risk of unauthorized access. Store passwords securely. A company’s first line of defense against data thieves is a workforce trained to keep passwords secret. But even the strongest password is ineffective if an employee writes it on a sticky note on her desk or shares it with someone else. Train your staff not to disclose passwords in response to phone calls or emails, including ones that may appear to be coming from a colleague. Con artists have been known to impersonate corporate officials by spoofing phone numbers or email addresses. A compromised password poses a particular risk if it can be used to open the door to even more sensitive information – for example, a database of other user credentials maintained on the network in plain, readable text. Make it difficult for data thieves to turn a lucky password guess into a catastrophic breach of your company’s most sensitive data by implementing policies and procedures to store credentials securely. Example: A new employee gets a call from someone who claims to be the company’s system administrator. The caller asks him to verify his network password. Because the new staffer learned about impersonation scams at an in-house security orientation, he refuses to disclose his password and instead reports the incident to the appropriate person in the company. Example: A company keeps user credentials and other passwords in plain","id":3197409},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3197412,"description":"FTC wants your feedback about proposed Made in USA Rule lfair June 22, 2020 | 4:04PM FTC wants your feedback about proposed Made in USA Rule By Lesley Fair If your clients are interested in Made in USA issues – and you know they are – there are two developments at the FTC they need to know about. First, the FTC just announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for a Made in USA Labeling Rule . You’ll want to read the notice in detail, but the proposed Rule would apply to labels on products that make unqualified Made in USA claims. (In FTC parlance, an “unqualified” claim is a broad representation made without limitations.) The proposed Rule would incorporate established guidance already set forth in FTC decisions and orders and in the agency’s 1997 Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims . Consistent with that guidance, the proposed Rule would prohibit marketers from making unqualified MUSA claims on labels unless: Final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States; All significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States; and All or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States. The proposed Rule wouldn’t change or affect any other existing federal or state law or regulation relating to country-of-origin labels, but it suggests one notable modification: The proposed Rule would allow the FTC to seek civil penalties for violations. Once the proposed Rule is published in the Federal Register, we invite you to file a public comment either online or on paper. (Thanks for following the instructions for submitting comments included in the notice of proposed rulemaking.) Development #2 is that the FTC just issued a staff report on last fall’s Made in USA workshop convened to consider consumer perception of Made in USA claims and to discuss the agency’s Made in USA enforcement program. Dive into the report for the details, but according to the one panelist who provided survey evidence on how consumers understand Made in USA claims, a 2013 study suggests that almost 3 in 5 Americans agree that “Made in America” means that all parts of a product, including any natural resources it contains, originated in the United States. According to that same study, one third of consumers believe that 100% of a product must originate in a country for it to be called “made” in that country. The report cites those statistics in support of long-standing guidance in the FTC’s Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims that at least a significant minority of consumers are likely to be deceived by an unqualified Made in USA claim for a product incorporating more than a trivial amount of foreign content.","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:07:08 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/06/ftc-wants-your-feedback-about-proposed-made-usa-rule","titre":"FTC wants your feedback about proposed Made in USA Rule"},{"titre":"New FTC warning letters cite unsupported Coronavirus-related health and earnings claims","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/04/new-ftc-warning-letters-cite-unsupported-coronavirus-related-health-earnings-claims","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:07:08 +0200","description":"New FTC warning letters cite unsupported Coronavirus-related health and earnings claims sgressin April 24, 2020 | 12:44PM New FTC warning letters cite unsupported Coronavirus-related health and earnings claims By Seena Gressin The FTC is not the pen pal you want if you operate a multi-level marketing company but aren’t closely monitoring your distributors. In its latest round of warning letters, the FTC warns ten MLM companies that they are responsible for the claims made by their participants. The letters direct the companies to report within 48 hours what actions they’ve taken to stop their distributors from claiming their products can treat or prevent Coronavirus disease, that MLM business opportunity participants are likely to earn substantial income, or both. The FTC says that the health and earnings claims are unsubstantiated and therefore violate truth-in-advertising laws. The products at issue are not scientifically proven to treat or prevent COVID-19, the disease that Coronavirus causes. The FTC previously has sent warning letters to companies about their Coronavirus-related health claims, but the new letters are the first to also target claims about potential business opportunity earnings. The letters come at a time when millions of people are out of work and facing financial challenges as a result of the pandemic. MLM companies rely on a network of independent distributors, sometimes called business opportunity participants, to buy and resell their products, often through direct person-to-person sales or online. MLMs typically offer participants a cut of the sales made by people the participant recruits to invest in the business opportunity. The new recruits then try to sell the products, and try to recruit more people to do the same. Most people who join MLMs make little or no money. According to the FTC, distributors of the MLM companies receiving the letters have posted promotional messages on Facebook, Instagram, and other social media sites. Health claims the FTC letters cite include: “STAY SAFE!! MAKE YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM STRONG!!!” Standard coronavirus protection kit . #antiseptics and #immunity_support.” “HOW WILL YOU FIGHT OFF CORONA? USE NUTRABURST-CHAGA- .... #coronacure #coronaprevention ... #immunesupport #immunebooster ... #immunesystembooster” “Got the coronavirus heebeegeebees? Boost your immunity with this amazing deal!!!!” “... If interested to learn more or obtain oils or rollers Let me know A little extra protection can help #doterra #NursesCOVID19 #Dialysis #ImmunityBoosters #ImproveRespiratoryFunction” Earnings claims the FTC letters cite include: “...Living in quarantine and where 14 million people applied for unemployment just last week ... I’ll stick with the opportunity to change people’s lives ... turn a small investment into six figures .... #arbonne ... #quarantine #2020” “Need to make extra money? Find it difficult to pay your bills? Were you laid off/ #fired? Be your own Boss w/doTERRA essential oils. Msg me to achieve financial independence #laidoff #unemployed #cantpaymybills #cantpaymyrent #student #sales #sidehustle #makemoney #stayathomemom.” “[E]veryone’s getting stimulus checks right now... There is no better investment you could do... Take that money that you’re about to get back... figure out a way to make this happen tonight.” In the letters alleging unsubstantiated health claims, FTC staff reminds the companies that, under the FTC Act, claims that a product can prevent, treat, or cure a serious disease require the support of well-controlled human clinical studies. Because “no such study is currently known to exist” for the advertised products, the FTC says the companies “must immediately cease making all such claims.” In the letters alleging deceptive earnings claims, FTC staff reminds the companies that under the FTC Act, “claims about the potential to achieve a wealthy lifestyle, career-level income, or significant","id":3197413,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"titre":"FTC settlement challenges deceptive claims by patent assertion entity","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/11/ftc-settlement-challenges-deceptive-claims-patent-assertion-entity","pubDate":"Sun, 04 Oct 2026 08:05:12 +0200","description":"FTC settlement challenges deceptive claims by patent assertion entity wfg-adm109 November 6, 2014 | 11:07AM FTC settlement challenges deceptive claims by patent assertion entity By Lesley Fair Patent assertion entities have been the subject of much debate in antitrust and intellectual property circles. But there’s one proposition we hope that parties on all sides of the issue can agree on: It’s illegal to falsely threaten patent suits against small businesses or make unfounded claims that other companies have paid for patent licenses. That’s the misconduct alleged in a settlement the FTC just announced with patent assertion entity MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, MPHJ corporate officer Jay Mac Rust, and Texas-based law firm Farney Daniels, P.C. Generally speaking, patent assertion entities are companies that acquire patent rights and then seek licensing fees from businesses they claim are infringing their patents. The FTC’s action centers on representations that MPHJ made while asserting patents that relate to network computer scanning technology MPHJ says is used in offices of all sizes across the country. According to the FTC, the respondents sent out a series of letters to thousands of small businesses. The first letter – sent to more than 16,000 businesses on the letterhead of one of MPHJ’s dozens of six-letter subsidiaries – told the recipient they “likely have an infringing system” and directed them to contact the sender within two weeks “so that we may agree with you upon an appropriate license arrangement if one is needed.” The letter offered to settle without court action if the business agreed to a license of $1,200 per employee. (Other versions said $1,000.) Things heated up in later correspondence, sent on the letterhead of Farney Daniels. That letter included a draft lawsuit “which our client will be forced to file” against the small business if it didn’t respond within two weeks. According to the FTC, the respondents sent that letter to approximately 4,870 businesses, including 1,718 letters sent on just one day – appropriately enough, April 1, 2013. The FTC complaint challenges a series of misrepresentations that respondents made in those letters. For example, the first letter stated that “most businesses, upon being informed that they are infringing someone’s patent rights, are interested in operating lawfully and taking a license promptly” and that “many companies have responded to this licensing program in such a manner.” What was the exact tally of the “many companies” that had paid for a license at the time that statement was made? According to the FTC, when the first 7,300 letters were sent, the respondents hadn’t sold a single license through their letter campaign. What about the later letters on law firm letterhead that threatened imminent legal action against small businesses that didn’t reply? The FTC says the respondents didn’t file a single lawsuit against any of the businesses that didn’t respond, nor did they intend or prepare to file lawsuits against them. So those claims were challenged as false, too. The proposed settlement would bar MPHJ, Jay Mac Rust, and Farney Daniels from making misrepresentations when asserting patent rights, including deceptive claims about the number of licenses sold, that a lawsuit will be filed, and the imminence of any lawsuit. Future deceptive conduct could trigger penalties of up to $16,000 per letter. You can file a comment about the proposed settlement by December 8, 2014.","id":3196243,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"description":"Judge orders $13.4 million in contempt action challenging BlueHippo hype lfair May 2, 2016 | 10:52AM Judge orders $13.4 million in contempt action challenging BlueHippo hype By Lesley Fair Animation fans remember the ballet-dancing pink hippos in Fantasia . In Egyptian mythology, the god of disorder was depicted as a red hippo. And many consumers – especially those already in financial distress – were drawn in by national TV and radio ads for BlueHippo, a company that claimed to finance the purchase of computers and other electronics for people with “less than perfect credit, bad credit, no credit.” A $13.4 million ruling by a United States District Judge in an FTC contempt action sends a message to hippos of all hues (and businesses) about the FTC’s commitment to effective order enforcement. In 2008, the FTC sued BlueHippo Funding and BlueHippo Capital for, among other things, not delivering ordered merchandise, failing to make disclosures required by the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, and illegally conditioning the extension of credit on consumers’ “agreement” to repay by preauthorized electronic debit. One common tactic was that BlueHippo said it would deliver the product once the consumer made 13 weekly payments, but then didn’t make good on that promise. The FTC also alleged that in many instances, BlueHippo debited consumers’ accounts without first disclosing that consumers couldn’t get a refund even if they cancelled before delivery. The defendants settled that case , agreeing to pay up to $5 million in redress and to change how they did business in the future. The FTC went back to court in 2009 , alleging that BlueHippo was flouting the terms of the settlement and continuing to engage in illegal practices. The Court granted the FTC’s contempt motion against the corporate defendants and CEO Joseph Rensin, but entered a remedy of only $609,000. The FTC appealed the financial ruling. Arguing that there should be a presumption that consumers relied on the defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, the FTC sought a contempt order of $14 million – the gross sales the defendants generated through their illegal conduct. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled , “We agree with the FTC and join our sister circuits in adopting a presumption of consumer reliance in FTC civil contempt actions.” The appellate court remanded the matter to the trial court to determine “whether the FTC has demonstrated that it is entitled to a presumption of consumer reliance. If so, the court should use defendants’ gross receipts as a baseline for calculating the consumers’ actual loss, and defendants should then be afforded an opportunity to proffer evidence showing that an offset of the baseline is warranted.” What’s the latest development? On remand, the trial court entered a judgment against CEO Rensin for $13.4 million, the financial harm the court determined that consumers suffered as a result of the scheme. The case is another illustration of the FTC’s interest in effective order enforcement. To settle cases and then not follow through to see that defendants live up to their promises would be, well, hippo-critical.","id":3195790,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/05/judge-orders-134-million-contempt-action-challenging-bluehippo-hype","titre":"Judge orders $13.4 million in contempt action challenging BlueHippo hype","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 14:06:14 +0200"},{"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","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","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},{"id":3194915,"description":"Buckle up for a two-lane look at car buying lfair July 30, 2020 | 1:04PM Buckle up for a two-lane look at car buying By Lesley Fair It’s one of the biggest purchases people make, but two new FTC staff reports examine some common pitfalls when consumers are in the market for a car. Buckle down and read the Bureau of Consumer Protection’s Buckle Up: Navigating Auto Sales and Financing , which focuses on the challenges buyers face in getting accurate, understandable information when shopping for a vehicle. Not in the auto business? Not so fast. The deep-dive analysis of  Buckle Up  and an accompanying report by BCP staff and the Bureau of Economics – The Auto Buyer Study: Lessons From In-Depth Consumer Interviews And Related Research  – offer insights into the perception and behavior of consumers in the study that can apply to other industries. The FTC’s interest in auto-related transactions goes back decades. (Check out Volume 1 of Federal Trade Commission Decisions for a 1919 case regarding deception in the sale of auto parts.) The FTC has brought law enforcement actions challenging illegal practices, held workshops and roundtables to hear from consumer groups and industry members, and educated buyers and sellers about their rights and responsibilities. One notable feature about the two new reports is that FTC staff went straight to the source and based their views, in part, on detailed interviews with consumers about their experiences when buying and financing a vehicle. You’ll want to read Buckle Up from bumper to bumper, but one key finding is that consumers may be unaware of key terms in sales and financing contracts. One reason may be the extent to which the negotiations process focuses primarily on the monthly payment. That approach can leave consumers in the dark about other important – sometimes even more important – financial variables like the down payment, the length of financing, the total sales price, and the annual percentage rate. So let’s say the consumer has decided on a vehicle and has come to an agreement on the price. All done? Consumers may think the checkered flag is in sight, but for the dealership, negotiations have just begun. First, as the report suggests, “price” can be an elusive concept in the context of car buying. Does it mean sticker price, out-the-door price, total sales price, or something else? Furthermore, it’s often in a last-lap meeting in the financing office that dealers raise the issue of add-ons – purchases like extended warranties, service plans, credit insurance, GAP policies, window etching, etc., that can add substantially to what consumers walking into the office thought the price was. Add-ons also may have limits or conditions and may not cover what consumers expect. The staff report suggests several reasons why add-ons were the single greatest area of confusion for consumers who participated in the study. According to the report, the talk turned to add-ons only after long hours (or days or weeks) of negotiations left consumers feeling both pressured to close the deal and confused by the details. Even the very nature of the products left many consumers bewildered. Are these add-ons mandatory? Are they free? Is the cost included in what consumers perceive as the already agreed-upon price? Does the dealership’s practice of bundling – offering add-ons as a package – mean buyers can’t pick and choose the add-ons they want? What about consumers’ opportunity to review the purchase and financing paperwork? As the report notes, “[T]he length of the auto-buying process, the amount of paperwork involved, and the technical industry jargon often coalesce to make meaningful review and engagement a challenging task.” Participants in the study cited the exhausting negotiation process, a sense of feeling rushed at the end, information overload that left some of them “overwhelmed,” and the difficulty of reviewing documents on a tablet or other","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:38 +0200","titre":"Buckle up for a two-lane look at car buying","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/07/buckle-two-lane-look-car-buying"},{"pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/06/practice-fusion-case-suggests-6-health-privacy-pointers","titre":"Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3194910,"description":"Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers lfair June 8, 2016 | 9:01AM Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers By Lesley Fair Combine two of the most talked-about consumer protection topics – health privacy and consumer-generated online content – and what do you get? A proposed FTC settlement with Practice Fusion, the largest cloud-based electronic health records company in the country, and six compliance tips for others in the industry. One of San Francisco-based Practice Fusion’s primary products is an electronic records system for outpatient providers. In 2009, the company launched “Patient Fusion,” an online portal where patients whose providers were already using Practice Fusion could view or download their health information or transmit it to another provider. Patient Fusion also let patients send and receive secure messages from their providers. Fast forward several years and the company decided to expand Patient Fusion to include a public directory where current and prospective enrollees could search for doctors geographically or by specialty, read patient reviews of providers, and request appointments. But Practice Fusion had to ask itself a question familiar to many online companies: How do we get the content – in this case, patient reviews? That’s the focus of the FTC’s lawsuit. According to the complaint , Practice Fusion solicited data in a misleading way that led some patients to believe they were sending follow-up messages directly to their doctors about their diagnosis, medical treatment, prescriptions, etc. – and not contributing content to a public website. Practice Fusion, however, populated its new site with the information those people provided, some of which was highly sensitive. Here’s what happened. After appointments with their doctors, patients received emails titled “How was your visit?” The message continued, “To help improve your service in the future, please let us know how your visit went” and included a link with rating stars. The message ended this way: Thank you, Dr. [Name] In a footer, the message said “This email was sent to you by Patient Fusion®, a tool Doctor [Name] uses to deliver the highest quality of care to patients.” Below that in smaller print it said “Sent on behalf of Doctor [Name]’s office by: Practice Fusion.” If patients clicked the link, they were taken to a page that asked for feedback about things like how long they had to wait for their appointment, the doctor’s bedside manner, and whether their medical concern was addressed. There also was a text box where patients were invited to “leave a review for your provider.” Below that was a pre-checked box with the phrase “Keep this review anonymous.” What did some people put in that box? Highly sensitive information directly addressed to their doctors, not evaluations meant to be shared publicly. Here are just a few examples: “Dr [name], My Xanax prescription that I received on Monday was for 1 tablet a day but usually it’s for 2 tablets a day. I have not taken it to the pharmacy yet. Can I pick up a new one, or can I get a prescription called into a pharmacy? Thanks, [patient’s full name] “I called today and left a message regarding my daughter and no one has returned my call. I think she is depressed and has stated several times this week that she wishes she was dead. Could someone please call me [phone number]?” “The cefuroxime axetil does not seem to be doing anything for me. I did a little research and I think I have a yeast infection called candida. Not sure what to do about it yet. I guess I will first try to change my diet. Medication? [patient’s full name] “I would like to make an appointment for my back pain and possible shingles. Can you please call me @ [phone number]? Thank you! [patient's full name]” “I HAVE NO INFECTION [healthcare provider name].  EVERYTHING WENT"},{"id":3194911,"description":"FTC challenges claims for opiate withdrawal products lfair May 4, 2017 | 11:04AM FTC challenges claims for opiate withdrawal products By Lesley Fair Is there a family or a workplace that hasn’t been touched in some way by the public health crisis of opiate addiction? It’s no wonder that advertisers are offering purported treatments. But an FTC settlement with a Texas-based business stands for the fundamental principle that companies’ health claims need the support of sound science. The products at issue were Withdrawal Ease and Recovery Ease – and the names were the first of many representations that Catlin Enterprises made about what it pitched as “The Leader in Home Opiate Detox Since 2009.” Withdrawal Ease and Recovery Ease included daytime formulations of vitamins, minerals, and herbs. The nighttime versions had different herbal blends minus the vitamins and minerals. Among the ingredients were passionflower, milk thistle, turmeric, ginger, peppermint, pomegranate, and horseradish. For people dependent on opiates, a major hurdle to recovery is withdrawal. The defendants positioned their products as a solution to that problem: “Withdrawal-Ease customers have reported a significant decrease in the intensity of their withdrawal symptoms after using the system and following the instructions in our Opiate Withdrawal Survival Guide.” “The brain is where many of your withdrawal symptoms originate. Withdrawal-Ease targets specific brain functions in order to help ‘reboot’ your brain’s natural chemical balance and function.” “It’s the most effective and advanced natural treatment for opiate withdrawal and detox that you can buy.” The defendants didn’t end there. In addition to making claims through consumer testimonials, they said the ingredients in Withdrawal Ease had been “proven efficacious under rigorous clinical trials” and specifically mentioned “Clinical Study Abstracts from The National Institutes of Health (NIH)” as proof of efficacy. In addition, for people on the “road to recovery from opiate dependency,” the defendants touted Recovery Ease as an effective treatment for Post Acute Withdrawal Symptoms (PAWS), a serious medical condition sometimes reported after initial withdrawal symptoms have subsided. Based on a review of the company’s so-called substantiation, the FTC charged that Catlin Enterprises and CEO George Catlin made deceptive claims about the products’ ability to significantly alleviate opiate withdrawal symptoms, increase the likelihood of overcoming dependency, or alleviate PAWS. What about the claim that clinical studies showed that Withdrawal Ease was effective?  False, alleged the FTC. Under the terms of the proposed settlement , the defendants will need human clinical testing to support a host of addiction-related and disease treatment claims. Other health representations will need competent and reliable scientific evidence. Misleading claims about tests or studies are prohibited, too. The proposed order imposes a $6.6 million judgment, which will be suspended based on the defendants’ inability to pay. There also is a clause that makes the full amount due if it turns out the defendants made any material misrepresentations or omissions in their financial statements. This is the FTC’s second case challenging deceptive claims aimed at people struggling with opiate addiction. (The Sunrise Nutraceuticals settlement was the first.) The topline takeway: Marketers that offer unsubstantiated answers to serious health problems can expect to hear from the FTC.","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/05/ftc-challenges-claims-opiate-withdrawal-products","titre":"FTC challenges claims for opiate withdrawal products"},{"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","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},{"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","id":3194908,"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":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","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","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"},{"titre":"Is it amour – or scam-more?","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2021/02/it-amour-or-scam-more","pubDate":"Thu, 01 Oct 2026 14:10:47 +0200","description":"Is it amour – or scam-more? lfair February 11, 2021 | 12:17PM Is it amour – or scam-more? By Lesley Fair Online romance may begin with Panic! At The Disco’s High Hopes , but according to a new FTC Data Spotlight , all too often it ends with the conclusion that – to quote the J. Geils Band –  Love Stinks . Far be it from us to put a damper on Valentine’s Day, but reports to the Consumer Sentinel Network suggest that the injury inflicted by romance scams is on the rise. According to the new Data Spotlight , “For three years running, people have reported losing more money on romance scams than on any other fraud type identified in Sentinel. In 2020, reported losses to romance scams reached a record $304 million, up about 50% from 2019. For an individual, that meant a median dollar loss of $2,500.” Why the increase? The continued popularity of dating apps is part of the story, but the pandemic has played a part, too. For right now, the need for social distancing and masking makes the “meet cute” at the local coffee shop less likely. Of course, we’ve all heard heart-warming stories of romances that started on screen and blossomed IRL, but the Data Spotlight suggests that at least some of those digital dalliances may be hiding something more sinister. What does that have to do with you? We thought you’d never ask. Chances are that someone you know – a friend or family member perhaps – has a long-distance love they have yet to meet. A subtle word from you about the telltale signs of a romance scam could mean one less report to Consumer Sentinel in 2021 about a heart broken and a wallet emptied by a romance scammer. It can be a difficult topic to broach, but we have a sure-fire opener: “I just read the most fascinating thing on the website of the Federal Trade Commission, America’s consumer protection agency.” (What? That’s not your typical conversation starter? No Valentine for you!) Regardless of how you bring up the topic, Valentine’s Day offers a way to share some heart-to-heart hints. Romance scams can happen to anyone. According to the Data Spotlight, reports of money lost on romance scams increased for every age group in 2020. The 20-29 crowd saw the most notable spike, with the number of reports more than doubling since 2019. People between 40 and 69 were once again the most likely to report losing money to romance scams. And people 70+ reported the highest individual median losses at $9,475. Every picture tells a story, but some of those stories are fiction. Knowing that fetching photos can lure in a love, scammers routinely steal people’s snaps and pass themselves off as the person in the picture. To investigate their identity, try a reverse-image search of their profile picture or other photos they send you. If the picture is associated with another name or if the details don’t match up, you’re dealing with a scammer. Don’t mix romance with finance. We’ve always cautioned people not to wire money or send gift cards to online loves, but we have a new tip to add. Don’t let your guard down just because that special someone sends you money first. You can bet the money’s stolen. Next, they’ll want you to send it on for some cooked-up reason. This is how people become unwitting accomplices to money laundering. As soon as the requests for money start, it’s time to – depending on your musical generation – Go Your Own Way , bid them Bye Bye Bye , or make it clear that We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together . The FTC has more advice on how to spot a romance scam . ","id":3191273,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"id":3191275,"description":"Lights out on unsubstantiated pain relief claims and deceptive native advertising lfair June 25, 2020 | 3:00PM Lights out on unsubstantiated pain relief claims and deceptive native advertising By Lesley Fair For consumers struggling with severe or chronic pain, ads for a product called Willow Curve appeared to offer light at the end of the tunnel. But the FTC alleges the marketers made false and unsubstantiated claims for the product , a device that applied low-level light and mild heat to the site of pain – and set people back between $599 and $799 in the process. The proposed settlement also sheds light on the FTC’s ongoing concern with deceptive native advertising. The complaint names two Michigan companies, Physician’s Technology, LLC, and Willow Labs, LLC, and two individuals affiliated with both businesses, Dr. Ronald Shapiro and David Sutton. In ads on national TV, satellite radio, online, and in social media, the defendants claimed that for people suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, diabetic neuropathy, nerve damage, shingles, fibromyalgia, lupus, torn tendons, and other serious conditions, the light-emitting Willow Curve would provide “real, lasting, proven pain relief, without the costs, risks or inconvenience associated with elective surgery, prescription drugs or office visits.” The defendants also sold Willow Curve through a network of distributors and resellers, supplying them with promotional materials touting the product’s purported health benefits. What’s more, the defendants claimed to have clinical studies to support what they said about Willow Curve and that the FDA had reviewed and approved the device for its advertised pain relief and other health benefits. The FTC challenges those claims as false. The complaint also alleges the defendants advertised a “risk-free” and “money-back” guarantee for consumers if they were “not completely satisfied” within a specified time period. But the FTC says in many instances, the defendants required consumers to jump through hoops to get the hefty purchase price back – for example, by first undertaking a regimen of 92 “treatments” over a 180-day period. According to the complaint, those requirements were hidden behind hyperlinks or buried in paperwork in the Willow Curve box. Despite the defendants’ claim that they issued refunds within seven to ten business days, the FTC says some people never got their money back. Others got a refund a year or more later or only after reporting the defendants to a State Attorney General or the Better Business Bureau. Another notable count relates to the defendants’ use of native advertising. For example, what appeared to be an online magazine article, “Understanding the Gender Gap in Sports Injuries and Treatment,” was actually advertising for Willow Curve. According to the FTC, the defendants hired a marketing company to write this article and others, which looked a lot like the non-advertising content of the magazines and newspapers in which the ads ran. The complaint alleges the articles weren’t identifiable as ads, including when consumers posted or shared them on social media or in email. The settlement includes a judgment of $22 million, which – based on the defendants’ financial condition – will be partially suspended when defendants Shapiro and Sutton each pay $200,000. Among other things, the proposed order requires the defendants to have randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled testing to support a broad range of pain relief claims. The order also prohibits them from representing expressly or by implication that advertising is a statement or opinion from an independent publisher or source. The case illuminates some issues of interest to advertisers. Support pain relief claims with sound science.   There’s a predictable cycle. As more consumers experience chronic and serious pain, more marketers position their products as purported remedies. What comes next?","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Thu, 01 Oct 2026 14:10:47 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/06/lights-out-unsubstantiated-pain-relief-claims-deceptive-native-advertising","titre":"Lights out on unsubstantiated pain relief claims and deceptive native advertising"},{"id":3189429,"description":"Fighting Coronavirus scams: Taking stock chundycz May 8, 2020 | 9:01AM Fighting Coronavirus scams: Taking stock By Andrew Smith, Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, the FTC has released dozens of warning letters against people trying to make an illegal buck off the Coronavirus. More than a month in, it seems like a good time to look back at what’s happened. If you follow this blog, you’ll know these have been busy weeks – with advice about spotting the many scams we’re all facing, news of the warning letters sent on a wide range of scams, and some enforcement actions filed. You might wonder: Why send letters? Why not just sue the !*$@&#? Fair question. But the letters are working. And, given the scope of the scams out there right now, we want to get the best and fastest results we can with the most efficient tool we have. Right now, for these Coronavirus-related issues, that’s warning letters. In general, here’s how it goes: We spot someone advertising something with no proof that it works – and, in many cases, telling outright lies about its wonders. We send a letter pointing out the illegal things they’re doing. They then have 48 hours to tell us what they’ve done to resolve the problems we’ve raised. In nearly all cases so far, those who get the letters have stopped making the false claims or selling the scammy thing – whether cures from a product or earnings from a work-at-home scheme. Within 48 hours: no more lying to people, no more stealing people’s money. During a crisis like this, we’ve prioritized stopping as many bad actors as we can, as quickly as we can. And when a warning letter will do that, we’ll take that win. Most of the letters sent so far relate to the first scams out of the box: the treatments and cures – many of which we heard about from you. These treatments and cures were, of course, not at all what they claimed to be. The sellers peddled everything from teas and essential oils to IV or ozone “therapies,” stem cell treatments, and high doses of Vitamin C. All of these products have had one thing in common: There was no evidence – none – that they work against the Coronavirus. The warning letters are working in other areas, too. We’ve sent 13 letters to VoIP service providers and other companies, telling them we see how they’re helping illegal telemarketers or robocallers make calls related to COVID-19, and telling them to cut it out. And, just two weeks ago, we sent 10 letters to multi-level marketing (MLM) companies for making exaggerated earnings claims for their business opportunity selling fake Coronavirus treatments or cures from home. These companies hit the daily double: false income claims for their work-at-home program and unsubstantiated health claims for their products. But sometimes you need more firepower to get the desired result. It took a lawsuit to stop a company that, allegedly, pretended to be affiliated with the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program, fooling hundreds – if not thousands – of small businesses. And, last week, we filed suit against Whole Leaf Organics for allegedly claiming to treat not only the Coronavirus, but also cancer with CBD. Both cases are now pending. What we know about COVID-19 changes every week. And right now, the scammers are shifting their focus to the economic impact payments, among other things, to find new ways to get your money or information. But here are some things that remain true: Scammers are peddling cures and treatments with no proof they work. Remember: Right now, there is nothing that has been proven to prevent COVID-19. Anyone who tells you to pay them by gift card, money transfer, cash, or Bitcoin is a scammer. Period. And, if they say they’re from the government, they’re not. Never give your Social Security, bank account, or credit card number to anyone who contacts you. Again, not even if they say","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Thu, 01 Oct 2026 08:11:56 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/05/fighting-coronavirus-scams-taking-stock","titre":"Fighting Coronavirus scams: Taking stock"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3189423,"description":"FTC challenges influencer campaign for Warner Bros.’ Shadow of Mordor game lfair July 11, 2016 | 11:17AM FTC challenges influencer campaign for Warner Bros.’ Shadow of Mordor game By Lesley Fair In the popular video game Shadow of Mordor , players don’t just randomly slash, hack, and pillage. They battle specific opponents through a feature known as the Nemesis System. In the FTC’s lawsuit against Warner Bros. Home Entertainment , truth in advertising had a nemesis: paid pitches for Shadow of Mordor that Warner Bros. deceptively claimed were independent reviews. And read on for a startlingly candid statement by one of those influencers. To help launch Shadow of Mordor , Warner Bros. brought a social media company on board to coordinate a YouTube influencer campaign. One strategy was to hire influential gamers to post videos promoting Shadow of Mordor – videos that ultimately yielded more than 5.5 million YouTube views. In addition to free game access, Warner Bros. paid the influencers cash – ranging from hundreds of dollars to five figures. Influencers’ videos were subject to pre-approval and, according to the terms of the agreement, Warner Bros. “will be deemed the author and exclusive owner.” Warner Bros. was quite exacting in what else it required of influencers: “Video will feature gameplay” of the Shadow of Mordor game. “Video will have a strong verbal call-to-action to click the link in the description box for the viewer to go to the [game’s] website to learn more about the [game], to learn how they can register, and to learn how to play the game.” “Video will promote positive sentiment” about the game. “Video will not show bugs or glitches that may exist.” “Video will not communicate negative sentiment” about Warner Bros. Home Entertainment, its affiliates or the game. Warner Bros. also required “One Facebook post or one Tweet by Influencer in support of Video.” “Positive sentiment” posted for cash? That sounds like the kind of material connection between an advertiser and endorser the FTC says should be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. And for FTC watchers, that’s where the story gets almost as interesting as Shadow of Mordor . According to the complaint , influencers were directed to place sponsorship information in the text of the description box – that’s the collapsed box just below a YouTube video – not in the video itself. Furthermore, they were told to put “information about [the game] above the fold” in the description box and that the “description box will include FTC disclaimer disclosing that the post is sponsored.” But as the first example shows, only the top few lines of the description box are immediately visible. Without clicking the “Show More” button and possibly scrolling down, consumers wouldn’t see the sponsorship disclosure – especially since Warner Bros. mandated that game information had to come first. The second screenshot shows an example of the sponsorship information at the end of the expanded “Show More” box and illustrates – inadvertently perhaps – the FTC’s concern with the placement of the disclosure. In this example, the gamer wrote “This video sponsored by Warner Bros.” and followed with this telling statement: “No one reads this far into the description ... what are you doing snooping around.” Our sentiments exactly, Dude. In other instances, influencers’ videos included a half-hearted sponsorship disclosure – for example, “This has been one of my favorite sponsored games, so thanks that I could play it for free!!” – that failed to mention that in addition to free play, Warner Bros. was paying them thousands of dollars. The complaint charges that Warner Bros. falsely represented that the Shadow of Mordor gameplay videos reflected the independent opinions or experiences of impartial","pubDate":"Thu, 01 Oct 2026 08:11:55 +0200","titre":"FTC challenges influencer campaign for Warner Bros.’ Shadow of Mordor game","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/07/ftc-challenges-influencer-campaign-warner-bros-shadow-mordor-game"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/03/ftc-takes-unproven-health-claims-own-dorsements","titre":"FTC takes on unproven health claims and “own-dorsements”","pubDate":"Wed, 30 Sep 2026 14:10:25 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"FTC takes on unproven health claims and “own-dorsements” lfair March 19, 2020 | 4:38PM FTC takes on unproven health claims and “own-dorsements” By Lesley Fair It’s a disturbing trend. Companies are targeting older consumers, claiming to have easy answers for serious diseases for which there may not be a proven cure. That’s one allegation in the FTC’s action against Nevada-based telemarketer Health Center, Inc.   Another count challenges what we call “own-dorsements.” According to Health Center’s telemarketing scripts, websites, social media, and testimonials from supposedly satisfied customers, the company’s Rejuvi-Cell oral spray and Rejuvi-Sea and Rejuvi-Stem pills could treat a broad range of medical conditions: everything from cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease to hepatitis, heart attacks, and high cholesterol. In promoting the products, which sold in packages priced between $350 and $800, the company checked the buzzword boxes with science-y sounding terms like homeopathic , adult stem cell enhancement , and marine phytoplankton . The company claimed that diseases like diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and dementia “could be greatly reduced if not eliminated” through the use of its products. According to the complaint , Health Center’s telemarketers – who were instructed to follow the scripts word-for-word – told consumers the main ingredient of Rejuvi-Sea “alkalizes your body . . . so you can’t grow cancer cells.” Then there were heartfelt testimonials from purported customers who described themselves as “walking on air” and “amazed and redeemed,” thanks to the products. But the FTC says the company hasn’t conducted any studies demonstrating the products cure or treat any diseases or health conditions and there are no human clinical studies in the scientific literature to that effect. What’s more, the lawsuit alleges that some of those glowing endorsements that appeared to come from satisfied customers across the country were actually “own-dorsements” – testimonials from Health Center’s own employees. To settle the case , the defendants have agreed to injunctive provisions, including a requirement that a broad range of health claims must have the support of randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled human clinical testing. Almost all of the $8.6 million judgment will be suspended, based on their financial condition. Aside from the obvious points that the FTC continues to take a close look at cures targeting older consumers and that companies shouldn’t palm off endorsements from employees as independent opinions, the case illustrates two other important principles. First, the defendants’ unlawful practices were the subject of an earlier enforcement action by the Iowa Attorney General. Companies shouldn’t have to be told once of the need to substantiate their health claims – and they certainly shouldn’t have to be told twice. Second, the complaint includes a count for violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule , which prohibits misrepresentations about “any material aspect of the performance, efficacy, nature, or central characteristics of goods or services that are the subject of a sales offer.” That’s yet another reason to keep your telemarketing efforts above board .","id":3187485},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":3176041,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission announced today that is considering whether to update its Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses or take other action to prevent online platforms from engaging in ad-optimization practices that may be furthering impersonation scams. In an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to be published in the Federal Register , the FTC is seeking comment on the extent to which ad-optimization tools and services offered by social media, search engines and other digital marketplace platforms further efforts by scammers to impersonate legitimate businesses and government agencies using online ads.  “Free markets depend on trust, transparency and consumers’ ability to make informed choices. Impersonation scams—especially when amplified by digital platforms that profit from them—do more than rob Americans of their hard-earned money,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “They erode the very foundation that allows competitive markets to function. Today’s impersonation scams are no longer the work of isolated con artists; they are sophisticated, highly engineered operations powered by the same advertising and targeting tools that platforms sell to legitimate businesses. Consumers reported nearly $3.5 billion in losses to impersonation fraud last year, and the true cost is likely far higher. “The Commission’s mission has always been to safeguard the conditions under which competitive markets can thrive. Increasingly, consumers rely on a small number of dominant digital platforms for everyday transactions—from shopping, banking and travel bookings to accessing government services. Yet these platforms are the very places fraudsters seek out consumers, exploiting their trust while platforms profit from optimizing and disseminating scam ads. “Today’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking asks whether the Commission should require platforms to take concrete steps to prevent impersonation ads from ever reaching consumers. By exploring potential new obligations platforms would have to follow, the rulemaking aims to ensure that Americans participate in an online economy where truthful information guides consumer choice.”  Impersonation scams have topped the list of fraud complaints reported to the FTC by consumers in recent years. In 2025, the FTC received more than 1 million reports about imposter scams from consumers, who reported losing nearly $3.5 billion to such scams. In addition, online platforms play an important role in many scams. For example, nearly 30% of consumers who reported losing money to scammers in 2025 said they were first contacted on social media platforms, with reported losses reaching $2.1 billion. The ANPRM notes that impersonation scams have been amplified by search engines, social media and other digital marketplace platforms that profit from optimizing online ads for third parties, regardless of whether the third parties are legitimate. The ANPRM seeks comment on a wide range of topics related to the use of these ad-optimization tools and services and the proliferation of ads that impersonate businesses and government agencies including:  The financial incentives driving these platforms to offer ad-optimization tools and services, details on how each tool and service optimizes the content and delivery of the ad, and the steps platforms currently take to prevent the use of such tools and services for deceptive advertising The extent to which these platform ad-optimization tools and services constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices by furthering impersonation scams Whether these unfair or deceptive acts or practices are prevalent in the marketplace and whether the Commission should address these acts or practices by amending the existing Impersonation Rule, proposing a new separate rule or implementing non-regulatory Measures Measures the Commission could consider in crafting any new regulations, including vetting","pubDate":"Fri, 25 Sep 2026 08:10:48 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/09/ftc-seeks-public-comment-whether-update-rule-impersonation-government-businesses-address-platforms","titre":"FTC Seeks Public Comment on Whether to Update Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses to Address Platforms’ Role in Promoting Impersonation Scams"},{"pubDate":"Tue, 01 Sep 2026 08:10:10 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/08/ftc-states-sue-amazon-over-secret-ad-surcharge-scheme","titre":"FTC, States Sue Amazon Over Secret Ad Surcharge Scheme","id":3127461,"description":"Today, 22 states joined the Federal Trade Commission in filing suit against Amazon, alleging that the company engaged in deceptive and unfair practices that secretly inflated prices in its online search advertising auctions. The complaint   alleges that, for over seven years, Amazon has covertly and substantially increased the prices that more than one million brands and sellers were required to pay to advertise on its platform. As a result, the complaint alleges that Amazon’s scheme has likely extracted tens of billions of dollars from its unwitting advertising customers. “When one of the world’s largest online retailers engages in unfair and deceptive conduct, the impact can be staggering,” said Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “Amazon has millions of advertising customers who were misled into paying significantly higher prices. These higher costs were largely passed on to American consumers. The FTC under President Trump won’t allow this deception to continue.” The FTC, along with the attorneys general of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont and Washington, allege Amazon has imposed undisclosed surcharges on its advertising customers, which include over 500,000 small- and medium-sized businesses that participated in auctions for advertising placements on Amazon.com and its mobile app. In these auctions, prospective advertisers bid to place Sponsored Product ads, Sponsored Brands ads and Display Ads alongside the results that appear when a consumer searches for a product using a keyword on Amazon’s store. Placements are auctioned to the highest-ranked bidder for each keyword. As described in the complaint, Amazon has represented to prospective advertisers for years that Amazon runs “second price” auctions where the winner of the auction would only pay “one cent more than the next highest bidder” for each successful bid for an advertising keyword. However, in practice, the complaint alleges that Amazon has charged its Sponsored Products advertisers their own winning bid close to 80% of the time and has effectively converted its nominally “second price” auction into a first price auction. According to the complaint, Amazon’s “second price” auctions have been described by Amazon, and understood by advertisers, to be run as generalized second-price, or GSP auctions, which have been the accepted industry standard for digital advertising placements. The complaint states that Amazon has made these or similar representations on its website, in training videos and in other public-facing materials, as well as in presentations made to advertisers by its hundreds of sales personnel.  The type of auction matters to advertisers because it impacts how they bid. In a sealed first-price auction—the type of auction where winners pay the amount of their winning bid—bidders run the risk that they might overbid. So, in repetitive auctions for the same goods, they will often reduce their bid to determine what the minimum amount needed to win future auctions might be. This is called bid shading. In second-price auctions, bidders are more likely to bid higher, closer to their true value for the product, because they will only be liable to pay the least bid amount needed to win under the auction’s rules.  As alleged in the complaint, Amazon told advertisers it ran a GSP, but for years its auction pricing had “a surcharge hidden in it,” in the words of one internal Amazon document. The complaint alleges that, beginning in 2019, Amazon changed its auction rules without notice by adding an undisclosed surcharge that Amazon referred to internally as a “soft reserve price.” This resulted in advertisers paying substantially more than the price determined by the GSP auction.  According to the complaint, Amazon","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"pubDate":"Fri, 28 Aug 2026 08:07:59 +0200","titre":"FTC Finalizes Orders with Cox Media Group, Two Other Firms Settling Charges They Deceived Customers About “Active Listening” AI-Powered Marketing Service","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/08/ftc-finalizes-orders-cox-media-group-two-other-firms-settling-charges-they-deceived-customers-about","id":3120376,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission finalized orders requiring Cox Media Group (CMG) and two other firms to pay a total of $930,000 to settle allegations they deceived customers by falsely claiming to offer an AI-powered service that could target localized ads based on conversations captured from consumers’ smart devices and that consumers had opted into such targeting. In three separate complaints first announced in May , the FTC alleged that Georgia-based media and marketing company CMG Media Corporation, which does business as  Cox Media Group , and two marketing firms it worked with, New Hampshire-based MindSift LLC  and Wisconsin-based  1010 Digital Works LLC ,  deceived customers by claiming they used a special algorithm to listen in on and detect pertinent conversations from smart devices in order to target ads to consumers within a specific geographic region. Contrary to these companies’ claims, however, the marketing service wasn’t based on voice data, and consumers hadn’t opted into this service. If the service had functioned as advertised, this collection and use of consumers’ voice data without adequate consent would itself violate the FTC Act. Under the proposed orders settling the FTC’s allegations,  CMG must pay $880,000 while both  MindSift and  1010 Digital Works  must each pay $25,000, which will be used to provide redress to CMG customers impacted by these practices. In addition, each defendant is prohibited from making any misrepresentation about the qualities or features of its advertising or marketing services; the collection and use of voice data and whether consumers have provided their consent to collect, use or disclose their voice data; and the geographic targeting capabilities of its advertising or marketing services. After receiving two comments on the proposed settlement orders, the Commission voted 2-0 to give final approval to the consent","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"pubDate":"Thu, 27 Aug 2026 08:03:44 +0200","titre":"FTC Announces 2027 Telemarketer Fees to Access the National Do Not Call Registry","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/08/ftc-announces-2027-telemarketer-fees-access-national-do-not-call-registry","id":3118417,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission today announced new fees for telemarketers to access phone numbers on the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry for Fiscal Year 2027 which begins on October 1, 2026. All telemarketers calling consumers in the United States are required to download the numbers on the National DNC Registry to ensure they do not call consumers who have registered their phone numbers. The first five area codes are free to download, and organizations that are exempt, such as some charities and political callers, may obtain the entire list for free. Telemarketers must subscribe each year for access to the Registry numbers. The cost of accessing a single area code in the registry will be $85 in FY 2027, which is an increase of $3 from FY 2026. The maximum charge to any single entity for accessing all area codes nationwide will be $23,425 (up from $22,626 in FY 2026). The fee for accessing an additional area code for a half year will increase to $43 in FY 2027 from $41 in FY 2026. The Commission vote authorizing publication of the Federal Register notice announcing the new fees was 2-0. Note:  The new fees will go into effect on October 1,","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,"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"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","description":"The Federal Trade Commission finalized an order with Publishing.com LLC and its two principals, settling allegations that they misled consumers about how much money consumers were likely to earn using their self-publishing products. Under the order finalized by the Commission, Publishing.com and its principals, CEO Christian Mikkelsen and Chief Product Officer Rasmus Mikkelsen, will pay $1.5 million and be required to substantiate earnings claims in the future. In a complaint first announced in April 2026, the FTC alleged that Publishing.com claimed its programs and services would help consumers earn substantial income publishing e-books and audiobooks online. The FTC further alleged that Christian and Rasmus Mikkelsen claimed that they personally used this system to obtain significant wealth through online self-publishing. The FTC alleged, however, that most consumers who bought Publishing.com’s products and services never made the income the company promised in its advertising. Consumers who sought refunds discovered that Publishing.com imposed many additional conditions, which were often buried in fine print or the company’s lengthy terms of service, that made it difficult or impossible for consumers to get their money back. The FTC’s complaint further alleged that the company failed to disclose when reviews were written by company employees or other interested people, including relatives of the Mikkelsens, and that the company offered incentives to people for providing positive testimonials. The final order approved by the Commission prohibits Publishing.com and the Mikkelsens from: Making earnings claims unless they are not misleading and they have a reasonable basis to support them; Making the specific misrepresentations detailed in the complaint, as well as misrepresentations concerning material facts in the sale of any product or service; Failing to disclose terms and conditions of any cancellation or refund policy or failing to promptly honor a consumer’s cancellation or refund request in accordance with company policies; and Making misrepresentations regarding endorsements and reviews. The final order also requires the company and the Mikkelsens to disclose any unexpected material connections with endorsers or reviewers and any payments or other incentives for posting reviews. The Commission voted 2-0 to finalize the order and sent responses to the five","id":3004264,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/07/ftc-approves-final-order-against-publishingcom-settling-allegations-it-misled-consumers","titre":"FTC Approves Final Order Against Publishing.com, Settling Allegations It Misled Consumers","pubDate":"Fri, 03 Jul 2026 08:06:27 +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","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","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"},{"titre":"FTC Data Show People Reported Losing $3.5 Billion to Imposter Scams in 2025","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-data-show-people-reported-losing-3-point-5-billion-imposter-scams-2025","pubDate":"Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:09:40 +0200","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","description":"New data from the Federal Trade Commission reveal that people reported losing a staggering $3.5 billion to imposter scams in 2025, with reported losses increasing nearly three times since 2020. FTC data also show that people reported imposter scams more than any other fraud category in 2025—nearly one in three fraud reports were about imposter scams. These scams lured consumers through text, phone, email, social media, search engine results and other means. Some of the costliest impersonation scams start with a fake security alert, often from a bank. People are convinced to move money to “protect” it, with their losses often limited only by their available funds. Last year, people reported losing nearly $1 billion to business impersonators with the highest reported losses to bank impersonators—and about $920 million to government impersonators, up from $866 million and $789 million respectively in 2024. The FTC has seen a striking increase in reported fraud losses to all types of fraud—about $16 billion was reported lost in 2025, the highest on record and an increase of about 25% compared to the 2024 figure. “Consumers derive enormous benefits from competitive markets built on truthful information. But fraud undermines that foundation, impeding the market process and preventing markets from operating efficiently,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC will use every tool available to combat one of the most pernicious forms of fraud—government and business impersonation—and to protect the integrity of the digital economy.” The data underscore the importance of the FTC’s work with the  Elder Justice Coordinating Council (EJCC) , which is working to help raise awareness of imposter scams and other scams impacting older adults as well as other consumers. This year, the FTC, along with the Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services and members of the EJCC, is leading the Never Ever campaign, a public-private coordinated consumer education effort to raise awareness of government and business imposter scams. In addition to the federal agency members of the EJCC , the campaign also includes private sector representatives such as the American Bankers Association, USTelecom, Google and Microsoft. To help the public spot imposter scams, EJCC members launched the Never Ever campaign, which is aimed at promoting messaging on the key actions that government and businesses will Never Ever take. The Never Ever campaign will run from June 15 to June 26, in conjunction with World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. This first-of-its-kind public-private partnership includes participants from a wide range of organizations and is aimed at directing consumers to a website that includes information and resources to help them avoid imposter scams and what to do if they spot one. Enforcement Actions To help combat impersonation scams, the FTC in 2024 finalized the Impersonation Rule. The Rule gives the agency stronger tools to combat and deter scammers who impersonate government agencies and businesses, enabling the FTC to file federal court cases seeking to get money back to injured consumers and civil penalties against rule violators. Since then, the FTC has vigorously enforced the rule and brought a dozen enforcement actions that have resulted in halting imposter schemes and obtained over $70 million in redress for consumers. In 2025, the FTC brought law enforcement actions under the Impersonation Rule against:  American Tax Service (IRS imposter scheme);  MediaAlpha (government imposter scheme to sell health insurance);  Click Profit (business imposter money making scam);  Blackstone Legal (phantom debt business imposter scheme) and  Accelerated Debt Settlement (government and business imposter scheme that targeted older adults for debt relief). More recently, the  FTC filed a complaint against Innovative Partners in April 2026 , alleging the operators","id":2959787},{"pubDate":"Thu, 04 Jun 2026 08:08:22 +0200","titre":"FTC Seeks Comment on X Corp. Petition to Set Aside or Modify FTC Order Concerning Twitter","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-seeks-comment-x-corp-petition-set-aside-or-modify-ftc-order-concerning-twitter","id":2930078,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comment on a petition from X Corp., formerly known as Twitter, to set aside or modify its 2022 settlement order with the agency . In its petition to the Commission, X Corp. cited several reasons why it believes that the order should either be set aside or modified so that it terminates at the end of 2026. The petition argues: The order was imposed on a company that no longer exists, that every individual responsible for the underlying failures has left the company and that X Corp. has since built a world-class privacy and data-protection program; The order no longer serves any valid regulatory purpose, imposing millions of dollars in needless costs to address obligations and protections already required by domestic and international privacy regimes and industry-recognized frameworks that X Corp. follows; Setting aside the order safeguards First Amendment values; and Setting aside or modifying the order is critical to advancing American leadership in artificial intelligence. The public will have 30 days, until July 2, 2026, to submit comments on the petition . Instructions for filing comments appear on the docket. Once processed, they will be posted on  Regulations.gov . After the comment period closes, the Commission will vote to determine how to resolve the","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"pubDate":"Thu, 21 May 2026 08:07:59 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/05/ftc-sends-warning-letters-companies-about-compliance-take-it-down-act","titre":"FTC Sends Warning Letters to Companies About Compliance with the TAKE IT DOWN Act","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":2896369,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission sent warning letters today to a dozen websites advising them of their obligation to comply with the TAKE IT DOWN Act (TIDA), which requires platforms to give people a way to request the removal of intimate photos or videos shared online without their consent, and to remove the intimate photos or videos within 48 hours of a valid request. “Today we’re demonstrating just how serious we are about protecting the public, especially children, from abusive online conduct,” said FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “Platforms no longer have any excuses—they must comply with their obligations under the TAKE IT DOWN Act or face the consequences.” The warning letters were sent to 12 companies that offer so-called “nudify” tools that allow people to take a clothed image of an individual and remove the individual’s clothing to create nonconsensual and sexualized images. The letters note that these companies appear to be in violation of TIDA by failing to provide individuals with a process through which victims can request the removal of nonconsensual intimate images appearing on their platforms. The letters urge the companies to “immediately come into compliance” with the law. Those that fail to do so could face legal action from the FTC, which could result in civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation. The FTC began enforcing the law on May 19. TIDA, which was championed by First Lady Melania Trump and signed into law by President Donald Trump in May 2025, gave businesses one year to come into compliance with the law’s requirements. Chairman Ferguson sent letters last week to major platforms— Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Automattic, Bumble, Discord, Match Group, Meta, Microsoft, Pinterest, Reddit, SmugMug, Snapchat, TikTok and X —reminding businesses of their obligation to comply fully with TIDA. The FTC also issued guidance for businesses about how to ensure they are complying with the"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/05/ftc-begins-enforcing-take-it-down-act","titre":"FTC Begins Enforcing the TAKE IT DOWN Act","pubDate":"Wed, 20 May 2026 08:10:24 +0200","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","description":"The Federal Trade Commission today began enforcing the TAKE IT DOWN Act (TIDA), a law requiring platforms, at the request of victims, to remove intimate photos or videos shared online without victims’ consent. As part of its enforcement role, the FTC has launched TakeItDown.ftc.gov , a website allowing victims and survivors to submit complaints about platforms that have failed to act on valid requests for the removal of nonconsensual intimate images. The website also accepts complaints about platforms that have failed to create a process for people to request removal of these images. “Thanks to First Lady Melania Trump’s dedication, the public, especially children, will have recourse against digital exploitation and extortion,” said FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “In the age of AI, anyone can be targeted, and that becomes even more appalling if children are involved. The TAKE IT DOWN Act empowers families and provides the FTC with an effective tool to protect minors against this form of abuse.” The FTC enforces Section 3 of the TAKE IT DOWN Act, which set a May 19, 2026, deadline for covered platforms to give people a way to request the removal of intimate photos or videos shared online without their consent and to remove those intimate images, and known identical copies, within 48 hours of a valid request. The FTC has published new guidance to help consumers in the event that nonconsensual intimate images of them are posted online. The FTC also issued  guidance for businesses about how to ensure they are complying with the law. Underscoring the FTC’s commitment, Chairman Ferguson  sent letters last week to major platforms—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Automattic, Bumble, Discord, Match Group, Meta, Microsoft, Pinterest, Reddit, SmugMug, Snapchat, TikTok and X—reminding them of businesses’ obligation to comply fully with TIDA no later than May 19,","id":2893630},{"pubDate":"Tue, 12 May 2026 08:07:00 +0200","titre":"FTC Chairman Ferguson Advises Companies to Comply with the Take It Down Act","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/05/ftc-chairman-ferguson-advises-companies-comply-take-it-down-act","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":2878537,"description":"Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson sent letters today to more than a dozen prominent technology companies reminding businesses of their obligation to comply fully with the Take It Down Act (TIDA) no later than May 19. Signed into law last year by President Donald J. Trump with the strong support of First Lady Melania Trump, TIDA requires covered platforms to establish a process allowing victims, including children, to request removal of intimate photos or videos shared without their consent.  The letters were sent to major platforms , including Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, Automattic, Bumble, Discord, Match Group, Meta, Microsoft, Pinterest, Reddit, SmugMug, Snapchat, TikTok and X. The letters state the definitions and requirements of the law, along with the penalties for non-compliance. “We stand ready to monitor compliance, investigate violations, and enforce the Take It Down Act,” said Chairman Ferguson. “Protecting the vulnerable—especially children—from this harmful abuse is a top priority for this agency and this administration. The Trump-Vance FTC is grateful for the First Lady’s leadership on the Take It Down Act and on children’s issues.”  The letter specifies that covered platforms must provide clear and conspicuous notice about the removal process. They must also take down the nonconsensual images, and all identical copies, within 48 hours of receiving a valid request. Under the law, “covered platforms” include various websites, apps and online services, such as social media, messaging, image or video sharing and gaming platforms. The FTC also has issued guidance about what companies should do as they prepare to comply with"},{"titre":"FTC Seeks Public Comment on Unfair and Deceptive Fee Practices in Online Food and Grocery Delivery Services","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","pubDate":"Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:10:57 +0200","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","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},{"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","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","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":2721034,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission issued a policy statement today announcing that the Commission will not bring an enforcement action under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA Rule) against certain website and online service operators that collect, use, and disclose personal information for the sole purpose of determining a user’s age via age verification technologies. The COPPA Rule requires operators of commercial websites or online services directed to children under 13, and operators with actual knowledge they are collecting personal information from a child, to provide notice of their information practices to parents and to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information collected from a child under 13. Age verification technologies play a critical role in helping parents as they monitor their children’s online activities. Since COPPA was enacted in 1998, there’s been an explosion in the use of internet-connected technologies by children. To help parents navigate the challenges associated with their children’s online activities, some states have started requiring some websites and online services to use age verification mechanisms to help determine the age of users. But as noted at the FTC’s recent workshop on age verification technologies , some age verification technologies may require the collection of personal information from children, prompting questions about whether such activities could violate the COPPA Rule. “Age verification technologies are some of the most child-protective technologies to emerge in decades,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Our statement incentivizes operators to use these innovative tools, empowering parents to protect their children online.” The policy statement states that the Commission will not bring an enforcement action under the COPPA Rule against operators of general audience sites and services and mixed audience sites and services that collect, use, or disclose personal information for the sole purpose of determining a user’s age without first obtaining verifiable parental consent—if they comply with certain conditions, specifically that they: do not use or disclose information collected for age verification purposes for any purpose except to determine a user’s age; do not retain this information longer than necessary to fulfill the age verification purposes, and delete such information promptly thereafter; disclose information collected for age verification purposes only to those third parties the operator has taken reasonable steps to determine are capable of maintaining the confidentiality, security, and integrity of the information, including by obtaining certain written assurances from those third parties; provide clear notice to parents and children of the information collected for age verification purposes; employ reasonable security safeguards for information collected for age verification purposes; and take reasonable steps to determine that any product, service, method, or third party utilized for age verification purposes is likely to provide reasonably accurate results as to the user’s age. The policy statement indicates that the Commission intends to initiate a review of the COPPA Rule to address age verification mechanisms. The policy statement will remain effective until the Commission publishes final rule amendments on this issue in the Federal Register, or until otherwise withdrawn. The Commission vote to issue the policy statement was 2-0. The lead staffer on this matter is Manmeet Dhindsa from the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","pubDate":"Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:21:56 +0100","titre":"FTC Issues COPPA Policy Statement to Incentivize the Use of Age Verification Technologies to Protect Children Online","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/02/ftc-issues-coppa-policy-statement-incentivize-use-age-verification-technologies-protect-children"},{"id":2679350,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission is returning nearly $23 million to consumers nationwide who bought deceptively marketed overseas real estate lots in what the sellers pitched as Sanctuary Belize, a supposed luxury development in southern, coastal Belize, as well as its nearby sister development, Kanantik. The FTC is mailing 1,659 checks to defrauded investors. The average amount of each check for Sanctuary Belize consumers is $16,462 and the average amount of each check for Kanantik consumers is $6,346.39. Today’s announcement represents the second mailing to consumers who invested in the Sanctuary Belize scheme, with approximately  $10 million distributed previously . The first round of checks was sent only to consumers who bought property within Sanctuary Belize. Today’s checks are going to both Sanctuary Belize investors, as well as consumers who invested in Kanantik, a related development owned and operated by some of the Sanctuary Belize defendants, and other areas covered by the court relief in this case. In November 2018, the FTC filed a complaint charging that Andris Pukke, a prior FTC defendant, and several other corporate and individual defendants deceived consumers who invested in Sanctuary Belize by promising they were investing in a luxury development and resort. The defendants, however, failed to deliver on the promised amenities, and consumers who invested in Sanctuary property lost money and could not resell their lots. Following a trial in 2020, a federal court found that the defendants, who took in more than $100 million, duped consumers into buying Sanctuary Belize lots by falsely claiming it would be a safe investment, that the development would include luxury amenities and be completed soon, and that consumers could resell their lots. The defendants appealed,  but the Court of Appeals confirmed the deceptive scheme and the monetary judgment against Pukke and his associates, Peter Baker and John Usher. The District Court  ordered the receiver to send an initial round of payments , with the money coming from previous settlements. As part of a second round of payments, the Commission is sending a total of $22,865,008.34 to consumers. Checks totaling $20,028,170.25 are being sent to 1,202 claim applicants who invested in properties within Sanctuary Belize, and checks totaling $2,836,838.09 are being sent to 447 claim applicants who invested in properties in the Kanantik and other covered development areas. Consumers who receive checks in this second distribution should cash them within 60 days, as indicated on the check. Consumers with questions about their payments should email the redress administrator, Rust Consulting, which is being supported by Ankura Consulting Group, LLC, at Payment@SanctuaryBelizeRedress.com . Consumers with other questions about the Sanctuary Belize receivership can contact  info@sanctuarybelizereceivership.com . The application process for requesting a payment is closed, and the receiver is no longer accepting applications from consumers. Consumers can also visit the receivership website at  www.SanctuaryBelizeReceivership.com to find other resources such as","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","pubDate":"Fri, 06 Feb 2026 09:48:14 +0100","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/02/ftc-sending-nearly-23-million-consumers-who-invested-deceptive-sanctuary-belize-kanantik-real-estate","titre":"FTC is Sending Nearly $23 Million to Consumers Who Invested in the Deceptive Sanctuary Belize and Kanantik Real Estate Development Schemes"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/01/ftc-secures-settlement-banning-growth-cave-defendants-marketing-selling-business-opportunities","titre":"FTC Secures Settlement Banning Growth Cave Defendants from Marketing and Selling Business Opportunities and Credit Repair Programs","pubDate":"Wed, 28 Jan 2026 09:50:38 +0100","description":"Defendants behind a wide-ranging operation known as Growth Cave, including its co-CEOs, are permanently banned from marketing and selling business opportunities and credit repair programs as part of an FTC settlement to resolve allegations that their scheme cost consumers nearly $50 million. As part of that settlement, Growth Cave’s co-CEOs also will be required to liquidate millions of dollars’ worth of assets, including a multimillion-dollar house, to provide consumer redress. “On day one, the Trump-Vance FTC reprioritized combatting fraud that harms American markets. Today’s successful resolution demonstrates that the Commission is focused on protecting our markets from dishonest actors,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. The FTC  sued Growth Cave  in February 2025, alleging that consumers were deceived by false promises of significant income. Growth Cave allegedly offered numerous business opportunities, which regularly failed to deliver the promised results while costing consumers thousands of dollars. The amended complaint also alleges that consumers had trouble reaching Growth Cave employees and obtaining customer support. Named as defendants in the lawsuit were Growth Cave’s co-CEOs Lucas Lee-Tyson and Osmany Batte, Operations Manager Jordan Marksberry, related Growth Cave entities, and relief defendant Friendly Solar. The FTC previously approved, and the court entered, a stipulated order settling its charges against Marksberry late last August. That order bans Marksberry from: marketing or selling business opportunities, engaging in credit repair activities, and making misleading earning claims or assisting others in doing the same. Finally, the order includes a judgment of $48,597,538 against him, which has been partially suspended upon his payment of $35,000 to the Commission. The court orders announced today settle the FTC’s charges against all remaining defendants in this case. The first order (the LLT order) binds Lee-Tyson, individually and as an officer and/or owner of Growth Cave, LLC and LLT Research LLC. The second order (the Batte order)   binds Apex Mind, LLC; Osmany Batte, individually and as an officer of Growth Cave, LLC and Apex Mind, LLC; and relief defendant Friendly Solar, Inc. Both orders announced today contain similar conduct provisions, banning the defendants from selling and marketing—or assisting others in selling or marketing—business opportunities and from engaging in credit repair activities. They also prohibit the defendants from making misleading representations related to earnings claims, testimonials, and the use of artificial intelligence. The orders also impose judgments of $48,597,538 against the defendants, which will be partially suspended based on their inability to pay. The LLT order requires Lee-Tyson to sell a range of assets, including his multimillion-dollar house, and liquidate his investment and bank accounts. The proceeds of these transactions will be transferred to the Commission and will be used for consumer redress. The Batte order requires Batte to liquidate several assets including a Rolls-Royce and a Ferrari. Relief defendant Friendly Solar is required to transfer $43,000 to the Commission for its part in profiting from the defendants’ illegal conduct. The Commission vote approving the August stipulated order with defendant Marksberry was 3-0, and the vote approving the orders announced today against the remaining defendants was 2-0. The proposed orders were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The staff attorneys on this matter are Maris Snell and Adrienne Jenkins of the FTC’s East Central Region and Miles Freeman of the FTC’s Western Region Los","id":2659689,"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"description":"The Federal Trade Commission finalized an order with General Motors and OnStar settling allegations that they collected, used, and sold consumers’ precise geolocation data and driving behavior data from millions of vehicles without adequately notifying consumers and obtaining their affirmative consent. Under the order finalized by the Commission, General Motors LLC, General Motors Holdings LLC, and OnStar, LLC (collectively GM), which are owned by General Motors Company, are prohibited from sharing certain consumer data with consumer reporting agencies. They also are required to take steps to provide greater transparency and choice to consumers over the collection, use, and disclosure of their connected vehicle data. In a complaint first announced in January 2025, the FTC alleged that GM used a misleading enrollment process to get consumers to sign up for its OnStar connected vehicle service and OnStar Smart Driver feature. The FTC also alleged that GM failed to clearly disclose that it collected consumers’ precise geolocation and driving behavior data via the Smart Driver feature and sold it to third parties without consumers’ consent. The final order approved by the Commission imposes a five-year ban on GM disclosing consumers’ geolocation and driver behavior data to consumer reporting agencies. This fencing-in relief is appropriate given GM’s egregious betrayal of consumers’ trust. And for the entire 20-year life of the order, GM will be required to: obtain affirmative express consent from consumers prior to collecting, using, or sharing connected vehicle data (including sharing data with consumer reporting agencies), with some exceptions such as for providing location data to emergency first responders; create a way for all U.S. consumers to request a copy of their data and seek its deletion; give consumers the ability to disable the collection of precise geolocation data from their vehicles if their vehicle has the necessary technology; and provide a way for consumers to opt out of the collection of geolocation and driver behavior data, with some limited exceptions. The Commission voted 2-0 to approve the final order and complaint as well as provide responses to","id":2633494,"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","titre":"FTC Finalizes Order Settling Allegations that GM and OnStar Collected and Sold Geolocation Data Without Consumers’ Informed Consent","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/01/ftc-finalizes-order-settling-allegations-gm-onstar-collected-sold-geolocation-data-without-consumers","pubDate":"Thu, 15 Jan 2026 09:52:25 +0100"},{"pubDate":"Fri, 19 Dec 2025 09:48:21 +0100","titre":"Instacart to Pay $60 Million in Consumer Refunds to Settle FTC Lawsuit Over Allegations it Engaged in Deceptive Tactics","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/instacart-pay-60-million-consumer-refunds-settle-ftc-lawsuit-over-allegations-it-engaged-deceptive","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":2582987,"description":"Today, the Federal Trade Commission announced that grocery delivery provider Instacart will pay $60 million in refunds to consumers to settle allegations that the company engaged in numerous unlawful tactics that harmed shoppers and raised the cost of grocery shopping for Americans. Instacart will be required to cease its deceptive practices under a proposed FTC order, and consumers who were charged for Instacart+ without their express informed consent will receive refunds as a result of the settlement. “Instacart misled consumers by advertising free delivery services—and then charging consumers to have groceries delivered—and failing to disclose to consumers that signed up for a free trial that they would be automatically enrolled into its subscription program,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC is focused on monitoring online delivery services to ensure that competitors are transparently competing on price and delivery terms.” The FTC has alleged that Instacart engaged in a variety of deceptive tactics that misled consumers and caused them to pay more in fees, while depriving consumers of refunds. Specifically, the FTC alleges that Instacart: Falsely advertised “free delivery” to consumers on their first order Instacart’s claims of “free delivery” are false because consumers still must pay a mandatory “service fee” to get their groceries delivered. These mandatory service fees add as much as 15% to the order cost and were not clearly disclosed to consumers. Falsely advertised a “100% satisfaction guarantee,” implying that it will provide full refunds when consumers are not fully satisfied Consumers who experience late deliveries or unprofessional service typically are not offered full refunds and instead are given only a small credit that can be used toward a future order. Instacart hid the refund option from the “self-service” menu that consumers use to report problems with their orders, leading many consumers to erroneously believe they could receive only a credit toward a future order rather than a refund. Failed to clearly disclose terms relating to Instacart+ membership enrollment Instacart’s free-trial enrollment process for Instacart+ did not adequately disclose that consumers would be charged for memberships at the end of their trials, nor did it disclose Instacart’s restrictive refund policy. As a result, Instacart has charged many consumers for paid memberships without their express informed consent. Hundreds of thousands of consumers have been charged membership fees without receiving benefits from the membership or getting refunds. Under the terms of the FTC’s proposed settlement order , Instacart will be prohibited from making misrepresentations concerning the costs of delivery services and satisfaction guarantees. Instacart must also clearly and conspicuously disclose the terms and obtain express informed consent for transactions involving subscription models where consumers are automatically charged unless they actively opt out. The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order was 2-0. The FTC filed the proposed order in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. NOTE:  Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court"},{"titre":"FTC Sends More Than $27.6 Million to Consumers Harmed by Unauthorized Billing Schemes","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/ftc-sends-more-276-million-consumers-harmed-unauthorized-billing-schemes","pubDate":"Wed, 10 Dec 2025 09:52:09 +0100","description":"The Federal Trade Commission is sending payments totaling more than $27.6 million to consumers who were enrolled, without their knowledge, in plans where they were shipped and charged repeatedly for products marketed to promote weight loss, clear skin, and other healthcare benefits. According to  the FTC’s July 2024 complaint , defendants Legion Media, LLC, KP Commerce, LLC, Pinnacle Payments, LLC, Sloan Health Products, LLC, and their principals, operated two types of unauthorized billing scams. In the first, the FTC alleged that the defendants defrauded consumers who bought CBD and Keto-related products by charging them more than the advertised price and enrolling them in continuity plans without their consent in which they are charged for products they never intended or agreed to buy. Several defendants participated in a second scheme where consumers paid a small shipping fee for a supposedly free “gift.” However, after consumers used their credit and debit cards to pay the fee, they incurred recurring unauthorized charges on their cards. In September 2024,  the Commission announced settlements requiring the defendants to forfeit tens of millions of dollars in assets and permanently banning them from the alleged illegal conduct. The settlement orders also banned them from marketing or selling any product or service using a negative option feature. The FTC is sending checks and PayPal payments to 1,215,337 affected consumers between now and December 18, 2025. Most consumers will receive a check in the mail. Check recipients should cash their checks within 90 days, as indicated on the check. PayPal recipients should redeem their PayPal payments within 30 days. Consumers who have questions about their payment should contact the refund administrator, Rust Consulting, at 866-914-9330, or visit the FTC website to  view frequently asked questions  about the refund process. The Commission never requires people to pay money or provide account information to get a refund. The Commission’s  interactive dashboards for refund data  provide a state-by-state breakdown of refunds in FTC cases. In 2024, FTC actions led to more than $339 million in refunds to consumers across the","id":2562491,"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués","id":2559842,"description":"7-Eleven, Inc. and its parent company, Seven & i Holdings Co., Ltd., (collectively 7-Eleven) will pay $4.5 million to settle a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit alleging that the convenience store chain violated a 2018 FTC consent order by acquiring a fuel outlet in St. Petersburg, Fla. without providing the Commission prior notice. The $4.5 million penalty marks the largest civil penalty ever collected in an FTC case involving a prior-notice violation. It is also the largest negotiated settlement of any order violation in the FTC Bureau of Competition’s history. “Under the Trump-Vance FTC, merger remedies that protect competition are once again on the table. But for merger remedies to work, firms must abide by the terms of their consent orders, and we will hold parties accountable when they don’t live up to their commitments,” said Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “7-Eleven failed to fulfill the terms of the FTC’s consent order and is now paying a record price. The FTC will not hesitate to protect the public by actively enforcing order violations and seeking penalties against future violators.” The settlement resolves an FTC lawsuit filed in 2023. That suit arose from a 2018 consent order to resolve the FTC’s antitrust claims that 7-Eleven’s $3.3 billion acquisition of 1,100 retail fuel outlets from Sunoco would harm competition and raise fuel prices for consumers in 76 local markets. In the consent order, 7-Eleven agreed to divest certain fuel outlets and to provide prior notice to the FTC before making future acquisitions of competing fuel outlets in the local markets. This prior notice allowed the FTC to investigate—and, if needed, file an enforcement action—if additional acquisitions by 7-Eleven harmed consumers in these local markets. The consent order specifically listed the St. Petersburg outlet as one that 7-Eleven could not acquire without providing the FTC with prior notice. According to the FTC’s complaint, 7-Eleven acquired the St. Petersburg fuel outlet in December 2018, in violation of the consent order. On March 25, 2022—over three years after 7-Eleven acquired the St. Petersburg outlet—7-Eleven first informed the Commission it had acquired the St. Petersburg outlet. The FTC found that 7-Eleven’s internal controls for ensuring compliance with the consent order were wholly inadequate and that the company failed to implement any meaningful systems to ensure compliance with the Commission order. In addition to the $4.5 million in civil penalties, 7-Eleven was required to divest the St. Petersburg outlet to a strong buyer. 7-Eleven also agreed to commit to additional prior approval and prior notice requirements, which will help ensure that the Commission is made aware of any attempts by 7-Eleven to further consolidate in the local fuel markets addressed in the FTC’s order.  The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the stipulated final judgment and order for permanent injunction and civil penalty was","pubDate":"Tue, 09 Dec 2025 09:50:02 +0100","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/7-eleven-pay-record-45-million-penalty-settle-ftc-antitrust-order-violation-case","titre":"7-Eleven to Pay Record $4.5 Million Penalty to Settle FTC Antitrust Order Violation Case"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/09/ftc-recommends-anticompetitive-regulations-deletion-or-revision","titre":"FTC Recommends Anticompetitive Regulations for Deletion or Revision","pubDate":"Thu, 18 Sep 2025 09:52:16 +0200","source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués","description":"On Tuesday, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson submitted recommendations for deleting or revising anticompetitive regulations across the entire federal government to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. This report is a response to President Trump’s Executive Order on Reducing Anticompetitive Regulatory Barriers . The Executive Order tasked the FTC with finding unnecessary regulations that exclude new market entrants, protect dominant incumbents, and predetermine economic winners and losers, as a first step to repealing them. “President Trump’s Executive Order recognizes that heavy-handed regulations can hurt competition, including by entrenching incumbent firms, raising costs for new entrants, and discouraging innovative new ways to serve customers,” said FTC Bureau of Competition Director Daniel Guarnera. “Competitive markets lower the cost of living, improve the quality of products and services, and drive innovation. Our engagement with citizens across the country and agencies across the federal government has underscored the importance of scrutinizing regulations to ensure that they don’t distort healthy, free-market competition.” Examples of anticompetitive regulations that the Chairman recommends for deletion or modification include: Biden-era Department of Transportation regulations that preference businesses owned by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals” when awarding contracts for transportation projects, rather than allowing free competition on the merits. Department of Education regulations that permit colleges and universities to include the cost of textbooks and supplies as part of annual tuition, which thwarts students’ ability to save money by buying their textbooks through alternative channels. Proposed Biden-era Consumer Product Safety Commission regulations that would require table saws to use expensive finger-detection technology controlled by the sole patent holder. A Forest Service handbook that establishes eligibility requirements that inhibited entry from a younger generation of ranchers. The report is now under review at the Office of Management and Budget. The FTC will continue to work collaboratively with OMB and all of the relevant federal agencies to rescind or revise their regulations as","id":2379473},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/08/ftc-challenges-anticompetitive-medical-device-deal","titre":"FTC Challenges Anticompetitive Medical Device Deal","pubDate":"Thu, 07 Aug 2025 09:48:21 +0200","description":"The Federal Trade Commission today moved to block medical device supplier Edwards Lifesciences Corp.’s (Edwards) proposed acquisition of JenaValve Technology, Inc. (JenaValve) due to concerns that the acquisition would limit patient access to lifesaving medical devices used to treat a potentially fatal heart condition. The FTC alleges that over the span of two days in July 2024, Edwards executed agreements to acquire both JenaValve and JC Medical, the two leading companies competing to bring to market transcatheter aortic valve replacement devices that treat a heart condition called aortic regurgitation (TAVR-AR devices). Edwards closed its acquisition of JC Medical in August 2024, and its proposed $945 million acquisition of JenaValve would combine the only two companies with ongoing clinical trials in the United States for a TAVR-AR device. The deal threatens to reduce competition in the TAVR-AR market, likely resulting in reduced innovation, diminished product quality, and potentially increased prices for consumers, according to the complaint. “ Edwards’ attempt to buy the U.S. market for TAVR-AR devices would eliminate the head-to-head competition that has spurred innovation for lifesaving artificial heart valves,” said Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “The FTC is taking action to stop this anticompetitive deal and ensure that JenaValve and Edwards’ JC Medical subsidiary continue competing to innovate, expand treatment eligibility, and keep down costs. Americans deserve all the benefits that come from competition between medical device makers, just as they do in other markets.” More than 8 million Americans suffer from aortic regurgitation, which occurs when the heart’s aortic valve does not close properly, causing blood to backflow into the heart. Currently, surgical valve replacement via open heart surgery is the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved procedure to treat aortic regurgitation, and TAVR-AR devices offer a new and less invasive way to treat the condition. JenaValve is poised to become the first company to bring a TAVR-AR device, called Trilogy, to the commercial market in the United States. If Edwards acquires JenaValve, Edwards would gain control over the two most advanced TAVR-AR devices, the FTC complaint alleges. FDA approval or commercialization of any other TAVR-AR device in the United States by another company, aside from Edwards and JenaValve, is not expected for the foreseeable future. Direct head-to-head competition between Edwards, through its now-subsidiary JC Medical, and JenaValve has driven the two companies to accelerate the development of their TAVR-AR devices, the FTC’s complaint alleges. Ultimately, patients will benefit if JenaValve and Edwards continue to directly compete to complete their separate TAVR-AR device clinical trials, product improvements, and commercialization plans. The competition concerns caused by Edwards’ dual acquisition strategy are predicated on Edwards owning both JenaValve and JC Medical simultaneously, but Edwards has elected to attempt to buy JenaValve while retaining its ownership of JC Medical. Edwards has not been willing to engage on divesting JC Medical to resolve the competition concerns with the proposed JenaValve acquisition, according to the complaint. The Commission vote to issue an administrative complaint and authorize staff to seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction was 3-0. The federal court complaint and request for preliminary relief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to halt the transaction pending an administrative proceeding. 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. The issuance of the administrative complaint marks the beginning of a proceeding in which the allegations will be tried in a formal","id":2298968,"source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués","description":"Today, the FTC granted early termination of its review of Mars, Incorporated’s proposed acquisition of Kellanova. Mars is a global manufacturer of pet care, snacking, and food products. Kellanova owns legacy Kellogg brands, including in snacks, crackers, and frozen breakfasts, after spinning off its North American cereals business in 2023 as WK Kellogg Co. “The Commission cares deeply about any competition concerns that affect American consumers, including in food products,” said Daniel Guarnera, Director of the Bureau of Competition. “Commission staff closely reviewed every aspect of this transaction, including both specific product markets and potential portfolio effects from the acquisition. They turned over every stone needed to arrive at a robust assessment of the likely competitive effects of this transaction. After nearly a year of investigation, dozens upon dozens of interviews with non-parties at all levels of the supply chain (including large chains and small, independent businesses), extensive data analysis, sworn testimony from party witnesses, and the review of hundreds of thousands of documents, staff found that the evidence pointed in one direction: this transaction does not meet the standard for an anticompetitive merger set by Section 7 of the Clayton Act.” “In other countries, Mars and Kellanova offer different products than they do in the United States, and they face different market participants, consumer preferences, and shopping practices. Notably, Kellanova continues to sell breakfast cereal in other markets, including the European Union, that it does not sell in the United States,” continued Guarnera. “The Trump-Vance FTC takes an America First approach to antitrust enforcement. Our job is to protect competition and consumers in the United States. Our job is to determine whether there is a violation of American law that we can prove in court. And once we’ve concluded there is not, our job is to get out of the","id":2208210,"titre":"Statement on the Grant of Early Termination of the FTC’s Investigation of the Proposed Acquisition of Kellanova by Mars","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/06/statement-grant-early-termination-ftcs-investigation-proposed-acquisition-kellanova-mars","pubDate":"Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:50:00 +0200"}]