[{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3201052,"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","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 08:05:50 +0200","titre":"First FTC ROSCA case challenges bogus BOGO and \"free\" claims","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/10/first-ftc-rosca-case-challenges-bogus-bogo-free-claims"},{"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","id":3199077,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","titre":"FTC recaps consumer complaint data for 2017: Who’s on the list?","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/03/ftc-recaps-consumer-complaint-data-2017-whos-list","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:24 +0200"},{"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","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/07/buckle-two-lane-look-car-buying","titre":"Buckle up for a two-lane look at car buying"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","description":"Amazon will pay $2.25 million in civil penalties to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the online retail giant knowingly violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by refusing to provide transaction records to consumers whose personal information was used by identity thieves to commit fraud. The complaint , filed by the Department of Justice upon notification and referral from the FTC, alleged that in numerous instances, Amazon.com Inc. failed to comply with Section 609(e) of the FCRA, which requires companies to, within 30 days of a consumer’s request, provide victims of identity theft with application and business transaction records about fraudulent transactions made in their names. According to the complaint, Amazon had no written policy to respond to Section 609(e) requests until early 2025, after it learned of the FTC’s investigation, despite prior outreach from FTC staff advising the company to review its compliance with Section 609(e). “Amazon often put identity theft victims through a Kafkaesque ordeal by demanding they identify the thief who stole their information before Amazon would release the records the law entitles them to—records that could help victims protect themselves and recover from the fraudulent conduct,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC will not allow companies to simply ignore their legal obligations, especially those designed to support and protect identity theft victims.” Many consumers who contacted Amazon to report fraud were told by its customer service agents that they could not provide the requested records for “security” or “privacy” reasons, the complaint alleged. For example, one consumer reported that when they contacted Amazon seeking business records related to unauthorized charges stemming from a fraudulent account, a company representative said they could not share details about the other account that had used the consumer’s credit card for “security reasons” unless the consumer guessed the name on the account (the name used by the identity thief), which the consumer was unable to do after making 30 attempts. The complaint alleged that in other instances, Amazon agents told consumers they were not able to access the requested records. Amazon even refused to provide application and business transaction records to law enforcement agencies who had been authorized to, and who did, submit requests to Amazon on behalf of consumers who were victims of identity theft. Some frustrated consumers resorted to sending copies of the FCRA and FTC guidance to Amazon in hopes of receiving the requested records, but Amazon still failed to comply with the law. The complaint also alleged that in some cases where Amazon ultimately provided requested records, it failed to respond to consumers within the 30-day timeframe required by the FCRA. In addition to the $2.25 million civil penalty—a record for a Section 609(e) violation—the proposed order will prohibit Amazon from failing to comply with Section 609(e) of the FCRA, requiring the company to provide the records lawfully requested by identity theft victims and law enforcement agencies acting on their behalf. The order also requires Amazon to provide notice to consumers about how identity theft victims can request records under the FCRA. The company must also contact consumers who had requested records since April 2024 from Amazon but did not receive them to inform these consumers that it may have additional records and that the consumers may request those records from Amazon. This is the second case the FTC has brought using its authority under Section 609(e) of the FCRA. The FTC announced its first case involving a violation of Section 609(e) of the FCRA in 2020 against Kohl’s Department Stores Inc . The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize the staff to refer the complaint to the DOJ and to approve the proposed stipulated order. The DOJ filed the complaint and final","id":2997627,"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","pubDate":"Wed, 01 Jul 2026 08:09:43 +0200"},{"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","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","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","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","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"}]